On 02/15/2010 04:27 PM, Neil Brown wrote: > > When mdadm defaults to 1.0 for a RAID1 it prints a warning to the effect that > the array might not be suitable to store '/boot', and requests confirmation. > > So I assume that the people who are having this problem either do not read, > or are using some partitioning tool that runs mdadm under the hood using > "--run" to avoid the need for confirmation. It would be nice to confirm if > that was the case, and find out what tool is being used. My guess is that they are using the latter. However, some of it is probably also a matter of not planning ahead, or not understanding the error message. I'll forward one email privately (don't want to forward a private email to a list.) > If an array is not being used for /boot (or /) then I still think that 1.1 is > the better choice as it removes the possibility for confusion over partition > tables. > > I guess I could try defaulting to 1.2 in a partition, and 1.1 on a > whole-device. That might be a suitable compromise. In some ways, 1.1 is even more toxic on a whole-device, since that means that it is physically impossible to boot off of it -- the hardware will only ever read the first sector (MBR). > How do people cope with XFS?? There are three options: a) either don't boot from it (separate /boot); b) use a bootloader which installs in the MBR and hopefully-unpartitioned disk areas (e.g. Grub); c) use a nonstandard custom MBR. Neither (b) or (c), of course, allow for chainloading from another OS install and thus are bad for interoperability. -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
