Am 24.06.2012 um 21:28 schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
> Thus, I'd guess that the metadata format changed from 0.90 to 1.2 with a
> very recent release of mdadm. Are you using distro supplied mdadm, a
> backported more recent mdadm, or did you build mdadm from the most
> recent source?
As I already wrote, I'm using Debian unstable, therefore distro supplied mdadm. Otherwise I'd have said this.
> If either of the latter two, don't you think it would have been wise to
> inform us that "hay, I'm using the bleeding edge mdadm just released"?
> Or if you're using a brand new distro release?
I don't think that Debian unstable is bleeding edge.
I find it strange that you've misinterpreted citing the mdadm man page as "sandbagging us". =:-O
--
Ciao... // Fon: 0381-2744150
Ingo \X/ http://blog.windfluechter.net
gpg pubkey: http://www.juergensmann.de/ij_public_key.asc
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
