Neil Brown wrote: > > That only leaves the question of what happens when a spare is added to > the array - how does the grub data get written to the space on the > spare. > I would rather that grub were responsible for this, than for md to > treat that unused space as RAID1. > We already have a notification system based on "mdadm --monitor" to > process events. We could possibly plug grub in to that somehow so > that it gets told to re-write all it's special blocks every time > something significant changes in the array. > I have multiple issues with this concept (including promoting Grub2, but let's not get into that.) For this to be reliable, there is only one sensible configuration, which is for /boot to be a RAID-1, which is better handled by -- guess what -- partitioning systems; and we already have quite a few of those that work just fine, thank you. Otherwise there WILL be configurations -- caused by controller failures if nothing else -- that simply will not boot even though the system is otherwise functional. Promoting this kind of stuff is criminally stupid. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. -- 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
