On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Phil Turmel <philip@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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). An example of what you are referring to (explicit assembly instructions) would be very useful for me, please? TIA Dee -- 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
