On 5/18/2021 1:31 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 18.05.21 um 19:47 schrieb Phil Turmel:
On 5/17/21 9:19 AM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2021 05:36:42 -0500
Roger Heflin <rogerheflin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
When I look at my 1.2 block, the mdraid header appears to start at
4k, and
the gpt partition table starts at 0x0000 and ends before 4k.
He may be able to simply delete the partition and have it work.
Christopher wrote that he tried:
chris@ursula:~$ sudo /sbin/mdadm --verbose --assemble /dev/md0
/dev/sdb /dev/sdc /dev/sdd
mdadm: looking for devices for /dev/md0
mdadm: Cannot assemble mbr metadata on /dev/sdb
mdadm: /dev/sdb has no superblock - assembly aborted
I would have expected mdadm when passed entire devices (not
partitions) to not
even look if there are any partitions, and directly proceed to
checking if
there's a superblock at its supposed location. But maybe indeed, from
the
messages it looks like it bails before that, on seeing "mbr
metadata", i.e.
the enclosing MBR partition table of GPT.
The Microsoft system partition starts on top of the location for v1.2
metadata.
Just another reason to *never* use bare drives
the most important is that you have no guarantee that a replacement
drive years later is 100% identical in size
leave some margin and padding around the used space solves that problem
entirely and i still need to hear a single valid reason for using
unpartitioned drives in a RAID
I can give you about a dozen. We will start with this:
1. Partitioning is not necessary. Doing something that is not necessary
is not usually worthwhile.
2. Partitioning offers no advantages. Doing something unnecessary is
questionable. Doing something that has no purpose at all is downright
foolish.
3. Partitioning introduces an additional layer of activity. This makes
it both more complex and more wasteful of resources. And yes, before
you bring it up, the additional complexity and resource infringement are
quite small. They are not zero, however, and they are in essence
continuous. Every little bit counts.
4. There is no guarantee the partitioning that works today will work
tomorrow. It should, of course, and it probably will, but why take a
risk when there is absolutely no gain whatsoever?
5. It is additional work that ultimately yields no positive result
whatsoever. Admittedly, partitioning one disk is not a lot of work.
Partitioning 50 disks is another matter. Partitioning 500 disks...
6. Partitioning has an intent. That intent is of no relevance
whatsoever on a device whose content is singular in scope. Are you
suggesting we should also partition tapes? Ralph Waldo Emerson had
something important to say about repeatedly doing things simply because
they have been done before and elsewhere.
7. There is no downside to forfeiting the partition table. Not needing
to do something is an extremely good reason for not doing it. This is
of course a corollary to point #1.
