On 26/08/11 12:13 PM, Dan Williams wrote: <snip>
mistake in the recovery process. Patch9 implements --dump support, the fact that something like this has not been implemented already is maybe a clue that it is not such a great idea? I can imagine someone messing up their configuration if they restored a metadata image to the wrong device, but if you know what you are doing it could be a useful hack.
I'm just a nobody mdadm user but I read nearly every word of this list and read the above and thought, if Dan thinks it's a good idea, then it probably is. I then read the summary of Patch 9, included below and thought, this might be safer if it required a --force switch to actually make the change, force usually being a sign that the user knows what they are doing (;-) Perhaps without it, it could just check that foo is valid (identical size) and suggest the force switch to make it so. Sorry I'm not a coder that can supply a patch, this compromise to deliver the functionality but with a safeguard in place occurred to me.
Best regards and kudos to our linux developers. mdadm -E /dev/sda --dump=foo Creates a sparse file image of /dev/sda named foo with a copy of the metadata instance found by -E. When used in the opposite direction: mdadm -E foo --dump=/dev/sda ...can restore metadata to a given block device, assuming it is identical size to the dump file. -- 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
