Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

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

 



On Sat, 13 Feb 2010, Michael Evans wrote:

On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
<volkerarmin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
0.90 has a very bad problem, which is that it is hard to distinguish
between a RAID partition at the end of volume and a full RAID device.
This is because 0.90 doesn't actually tell you the start of the device.

Then, of course, there are a lot of limitations on size, number of
devices, and so on in 0.90.

but it is the only format supporting autodetection.

So - when will autodetection be introduced with 1.X? And if not, why not?

All I found was 'autodetection might be troublesome' and nothing else.
 But dealing with initrds is troublesome too. Pure evil even.

Gl?ck Auf,
Volker
--
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


I remember hearing that 1.x had /no/ plans for kernel level
auto-detection ever.  That can be accomplished in early-userspace
leaving the code in the kernel much less complex, and therefore far
more reliable.

In other words, 'auto-detection' for 1.x format devices is using an
initrd/initramfs.

hmm, I've used 1.x formats without an initrd/initramfs (and without any conifg file on the server) and have had no problem with them being discovered. I haven't tried to use one for a boot/root device, so that may be the difference.

David Lang

[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