On Friday April 17, gombasg@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 01:49:41PM +1000, Neil Brown wrote: > > > As you probably know, my preferred solution is to have all arrays > > listed in /etc/mdadm.conf. If it isn't in mdadm.conf, it doesn't get > > assembled. But I don't have a lot of company in this opinion. Lots > > of people want to have arrays assembled without them being in > > mdadm.conf, and I'm trying to work with that. > > IMHO the goal to have all arrays defined in mdadm.conf would be much > better to achieve if mdadm managed that configuration itself, not unlike > how LVM metadata is handled. Of course doing that right is not exactly > easy... How does LVM manage metadata??? I assume it stored the metadata on the device. Which is what mdadm does. But as devices can move between machines..... > > > Note that 0.90 metadata does contain homehost information to some > > extent. When homehost is set, the last few bytes of the uuid is set > > from a hash of the homehost name. That makes it possible to test if a > > 0.90 array was created for 'this' host, but not to find out what host > > it was created for. So the above expedient won't work for 0.90 > > arrays, but the rest of the homehost concept (including any possible > > 'homehost=any' option) does. > > How about introducing /dev/md/by-uuid/... (or similar) and teaching > people that if they want to transparently carry their arrays from one > host to another, then they should always refer to it by UUID? This already exists, though it might be distro-dependant. /dev/disk/by-id/md-uuid-xxxxx > > Mounting file systems by UUID instead of device path got accepted by > people who really care about moving things around, so doing the same for > RAID could also work. That would be nice... NeilBrown -- 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
