Re: [ANNOUNCE] mdadm-3.1 has been withdrawn

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Doug Ledford wrote:
On 11/09/2009 11:51 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, Jon Nelson wrote:

I've been using 1.1 for everything.  What's the current wisdom
regarding 1.0 vs 1.1 or 1.2?
I used 1.1 because that's also where filesystem metadata usually goes
and therefore one might hope that the presence of the md metadata
would prevent accidental identification of a raid volume as containing
a filesystem.
I like 1.2 because if you happen to write an MBR or something to the
drive, you don't lose the superblock.

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.


I'm trying to wrap my head around this recommendation, and not doing well. The end of the allocation area (partition, disk, array, whatever) seems to be what users hit when they do a dd or some similar operation without understanding it. And the from end is what they hit when they "fix" the MBR or add a partition table because something said it was missing. As for your friend, nothing is foolproof, and unless he tried very hard he probably failed to damage anything in a way which couldn't be readily fixed.

I like 1.2, I feel it's least likely to suffer collateral damage, and the problems it causes seem to result in the type of behavior you mention aboue, the system says "Can't, won't, you don't know what you're doing."

--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
 "We can't solve today's problems by using the same thinking we
  used in creating them." - Einstein

--
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID Wiki]     [ATA RAID]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Linux Block]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]     [Device Mapper]     [Device Mapper Cryptographics]     [Kernel]     [Linux Admin]     [Linux Net]     [GFS]     [RPM]     [git]     [Yosemite Forum]


  Powered by Linux