On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, Doug Ledford wrote: > >> Of course, I recently had a bug report that I ended closing out as NOTABUG >> because of this very ability. The person had arrays with 1.2 superblocks, >> and they went to add a new disk, and all the existing disks had a specific >> partition layout, so he copied that to the new disk, then tried to add the >> partition to the raid array. It kept returning "device too small for >> array". Then, upon inspection, we come to see he has a 1.2 superblock on >> the *entire* drive, which left the partition table intact, but the partition >> table is *pointless* because the array is on the whole disk devices. This >> sort of confusion is bad. So, while I could see making it 1.2 for >> partitions (so that boot sectors won't overwrite the superblock), I wouldn't >> make it 1.2 for whole disk devices, and in fact it might be wise to refuse >> to create 1.2 superblocks on whole disk devices. Just a thought. > > Well, same thing there, if you create a partition table you don't break the > superblock. Perhaps something needs to be able to discern between the > superblock being "whole disk" and on a partition? Personally I put 1.2 on > "whole disk" (no partition table at all), and I would really HATE this > possibility going away. I like it the way it is and feel comfortable with it > and I don't want 1.0 or 1.1 superblocks in my setup. Since I almost always use partitions (this way, the partition *type* is "Linux RAID") I largely avoid this issue. -- Jon -- 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
