On 05/01/2018 10:34 AM, Wols Lists wrote: > Shouldn't make any difference. This. > /dev/md0 is the old-style numbered array. > > /dev/md/0 is the new-style named array. > > (And the link between numbering and default names is obvious :-) > > I just find it slightly odd that it isn't /dev/md127 - the default > numbering now counts down from 0xff. 0xff is 255, not 127. The counting down from 127 is a fallback when an actual name or number is not available from mdadm.conf. Have /dev/md127 or /dev/md/127 present in one's system means nobody bothered to deliberately configure the array number/name. Personally, I always deliberately number my arrays, and I use the old style. And I turn off auto-assembly, so the fallback is never invoked. > Bear in mind I don't have an mdadm.conf, a couple of ideas to play with > are (1) what happens if you boot without an mdadm.conf? (2) what do you > get if you regenerate your mdadm.conf (especially if you boot without one)? > > I'm guessing your current mdadm.conf is affecting things, and seeing as > I've never needed one, I can't really advise ... You just think you don't need one. You just haven't needed one /yet/. I highly recommend creating an mdadm.conf file with explicit assembly instructions (but with name and UUID only, though). Phil -- 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
