martin f krafft <madduck@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> also sprach Neil Brown <neilb@xxxxxxx> [2010.02.23.0330 +0100]:
>> The problem to protect against is any consequence of rearranging
>> devices while the host is off, including attaching devices that
>> previously were attached to a different computer.
>
> How often does this happen, and how grave/dangerous are the effects?
>
>> But if '/' is mounted by a name in /dev/md/, I want to be sure
>> mdadm puts the correct array at that name no matter what other
>> arrays might be visible.
>
> Of course it would be nice if this happened, but wouldn't it be
> acceptable to assume that if someone swaps drives between machines
> that they ought to know how to deal with the consequences, or at
> least be ready to tae additional steps to make sure the system still
> boots as desired?
>
> Even if the wrong array appeared as /dev/md0 and was mounted as root
> device, is there any actual problem, other than inconvenience?
> Remember that the person who has previously swapped the drives is
> physically in front of (or behind ;)) the machine.
>
> I am unconvinced. I think we should definitely switch to using
> filesystem-UUIDs over device names, and that is the only real
> solution to the problem, no?
Both filesystems and LVM have UUIDs. Does dm-crypt / LUKS have one too?
MfG
Goswin
--
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
