From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Robinson Subject: Re: argh! Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 01:51:37 +0000 Message-ID: <4CCE1D29.3070905@anonymous.org.uk> References: <20101031174440.586709a7@notabene> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20101031174440.586709a7@notabene> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Neil Brown Cc: Jon@eHardcastle.com, jonathan.hardcastle@gmail.com, Leslie Rhorer , Phil Turmel , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 31/10/2010 21:44, Neil Brown wrote: > On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 21:18:52 +0000 > Jon Hardcastle wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Thanks for your help. I use 0.90 as that is what there was when the >> machine was build ~3yrs ago.. the array has been grown and resized >> since then. >> >> Does anyone have a feature list for the superblocks? Why upgrade.....? > > The "md" man page mentions a couple of differences: > - v1.x can handle more than 28 devices in an array > - v1.x can easily be moved between hosts with different endian-ness > - v1.x can put the metadata at the front of the array > > I should probably add the other differences. > > - with 0.90 there can be confusion about whether a superblock applies > to the whole device or to just the last partition (if it start on a > 64K boundary). 1.x doesn't have that problem > - With 1.x a device recovery can be checkpointed and restarted. > - with 0.90, the maximum component for RAID1 or higher is 2TB (or maybe > 4TB, not sure). With 1.x you can go much higher. Aha. Some other good info for me to perhaps incorporate if I ever get round to trying to patch the man page. In fact I probably ought to review the last few months' list postings, and especially Neil B's. Cheers, John.