Neil Brown wrote: > > Having a replicated boot loader and having a raid1 are conceptually > quite different things. > A raid1 says "keep N (typically 2) copies of the data somewhere for > me". > A replicated boot loader says "store this boot loader on every > bootable device". > One is more abstract, the other is more concrete. > > Maybe it is a very subtle distinction, but I think it is worth > maintaining. Get your boot-loader-installer to install at the front > of every drive - don't bother having a raid1 there that is never read > and hardly ever written.. > I think it is an unfortunate distinction (although I see why you want to make it), and one which goes in the wrong direction. As I've stated many times (and not just in this debate), I believe using the RAID-1 mechanism to replicate /boot across the entire span of devices is the right thing to do. Not just the boot loader, but all of /boot. Once you do that, you do want to write it on a regular basis, and using the RAID-1 code is the obvious way to do it. You can argue that it is an accidental effect of the way the current Linux RAID-1 code does it, but it's nevertheless extremely useful, widely deployed, and extremely resilient. -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
