> No. When booting with MBR, all that goes in the boot sector is enough to > load the next stage. That next stage will include the raid1x module. It > lives in the gap between the MBR and the first partition - with old > fdisk, that was 31K, with more recent fdisk it's 1MB. With no partition > table on the drives and 1.2 metadata, there's only 3.5K for it, which > isn't enough. But that's why i've a BIOS_GRUB partition on the raid and so also on the disk. Shouldn't it be the same size for 0.9 which starts at the beginning, too? > What's actually happening with metadata 0.90 or 1.0, because they have > their data from the beginning, is that the partition table, GRUB etc > that you have installed into md127 appears to the BIOS as two drives > with boot sectors, partition tables, etc, and it then proceeds to boot > off the first drive. So the bios needs to read the partition table? I thought the MBR would be enough. > Until grub has loaded, you rely on the fact that > what you installed inside the RAID-1 is laid out in exactly the way the > BIOS expects to find it on a single drive. > > What you've done with metadata 1.2 is put GRUB in a place that needs > GRUB to find it. With metadata 0.9 i can install grub on sda and sdb even when there's no part. table. But with 1.2 grub says it cannot find a partition table so it cannot install . So it seems to be a grub bug? grub-probe correctly dectecs a 1.2 metadata md raid on the disks but then still doesn't want to install with the no partition table message. Stefan -- 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
