Bill Davidsen wrote: > David Greaves wrote: >> Jan Engelhardt wrote: >> >>> This makes 1.0 the default sb type for new arrays. >>> >>> >> >> IIRC there was a discussion a while back on renaming mdadm options >> (google "Time >> to deprecate old RAID formats?") and the superblocks to emphasise the >> location >> and data structure. Would it be good to introduce the new names at the >> same time >> as changing the default format/on-disk-location? >> > > Yes, I suggested some layout names, as did a few other people, and a few > changes to separate metadata type and position were discussed. BUT, > changing the default layout, no matter how "better" it seems, is trumped > by "breaks existing setups and user practice." For all of the reasons > something else is preferable, 1.0 *works*. It wasn't my intention to change anything other than the naming. If the default layout was being updated to 1.0 then I thought it would be a good time to introduce 1-start, 1-4k and 1-end names and actually announce a default of "1-end" and not "1.0". Although I still prefer a full separation: mdadm --create /dev/md0 --metadata 1 --meta-location start David - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
