On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:38:08 -0800 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 02/08/2012 03:59 PM, NeilBrown wrote: > > On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:16:21 -0800 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > >> On 02/08/2012 01:01 AM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> for now i'm still using grub 0.97 which can only understand > >>> metadata 0.9. Are there any advantages of the 1.2 metadata > >>> format? > >>> > >> > >> There are a lot of advantages to the 1.x metadata format, but 1.0 > >> is the easiest for bootloaders to deal with. 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 is > >> the same format, just with the superblock in different places. > > > > Hi Peter, wasn't it you who told be that 1.2 was best for boot > > loaders, as 1.0 uses block 0 which the bootloader also wants, while > > 1.2 uses a later block. That is why 1.2 is the default. > > > > No, 1.1 uses block 0 which the bootloader wants. > > Bootloaders need no special enabling to support 0.9 or 1.0 RAID-1. > 1.2 requires special enabling, but is workable. Doh - of course. Wasn't thinking straight. So 1.0 is good for boot loaders 1.1 is bad for boot loaders 1.2 is OK for boot loaders and good for other reasons (resizeable devices). Thanks, NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
