On 12/04/2011 01:54, NeilBrown wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 01:15:52 +0200 David Brown<david.brown@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
<snip>
Thank you for that. It's a bit late tonight, but I will try your
instructions tomorrow.
It's just occurred to me what the difference is between this case and my
initial testing with the raid5 array build directly on the loopback
devices. In my current case, the raid5's devices haven't changed - they
are still the mdpairX arrays, but those devices have grown. In the
previous case, I swapped out the old smaller devices for newer bigger
devices - which is not really the same situation.
Correct.
Thanks - it is /so/ much better to understand /why/ things are
different, and not just that they /are/ different.
Am I right in thinking that it is best to use metadata format 1.2, which
is at the beginning of the array? Are there any disadvantages to this?
Yes. 1.2 is the default so presumably someone thinks it is best...
The main shortcoming with 1.2 is that with RAID1 array you cannot just use
one of the devices as a non-raid device, which is sometimes useful. Of course
that can also be seen as a strength of 1.2 (and 1.1).
Ah, hence the warning when creating the raid1 array that it might be
incompatible with my bootloader. With raid1 and metadata format 0.90,
the bootloader can pretend the partition is just a normal partition, and
read from it directly. But for other metadata formats, the bootloader
must know how to interpret them to be able to boot correctly (such as
with version 1.99 of grub, according to <http://grub.enbug.org/LVMandRAID>).
mvh.,
David
And how do I check the metadata format of the existing arrays - is it
the "version" from a "mdadm --detail" report? (In which case, all my
arrays are version 1.2).
The version has (for silly historical reasons) 3 parts:
major . minor . patchlevel
The metadata version is the corresponding major . minor
NeilBrown
mvh.,
David
If I do the same setup, but build the raid5 array directly from the 128
MB loopback devices, then add the 160 MB devices, then remove the 128 MB
devices (after appropriate resyncs, of course), then I can grow the raid
5 array as expected.
Am I doing something wrong here, or is this a limitation of hierarchical
raid setups?
--
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
