From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1POM8D-00010n-GJ for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 22:16:21 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=35636 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1POM8A-00010d-Lj for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 22:16:20 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1POM86-0000uV-Bu for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 22:16:18 -0500 Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.120]:35818) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1POM86-0000sH-8U for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 22:16:14 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=pepdxKapwHuwCZNFD5uob2wvham6E+RljB0uXw08FdQ= c=1 sm=0 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=znT3HYeYn0u1vGJIbmIclg==:17 a=-nrRmMAMYtzCYiQtIAkA:9 a=5t7Fi1G0QCQrAA4YXOiEM4ejvrQA:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=znT3HYeYn0u1vGJIbmIclg==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 184.91.185.153 Received: from [184.91.185.153] ([184.91.185.153:58158] helo=[192.168.1.2]) by cdptpa-oedge03.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.46 r()) with ESMTP id 59/FD-19545-CE068FC4; Fri, 03 Dec 2010 03:15:57 +0000 Message-ID: <4CF860EB.7010005@cfl.rr.com> Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 22:15:55 -0500 From: Phillip Susi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Neil Brown References: <4CF55680.5010703@cfl.rr.com> <20101201092508.7023f974@notabene.brown> <4CF81A16.2010606@cfl.rr.com> <20101203123615.6edce071@notabene.brown> In-Reply-To: <20101203123615.6edce071@notabene.brown> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, The development of GNU GRUB , John Sheu Subject: Re: Software RAID and Fakeraid X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GNU GRUB List-Id: The development of GNU GRUB List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 03:16:20 -0000 On 12/02/2010 08:36 PM, Neil Brown wrote: > If the array uses 0.90 or 1.0 metadata and comprises whole-disks (not > partitions), and if the array is RAID1, then each device (except for the very > end) contains exactly the same data as the whole array. > If you install grub to the array, then it will be installed onto all of the > (active) devices in the array. And that is certainly the easiest way to > write to all device. > > It won't write to 'spares', so if you want to be able to boot from spares as > well .... but I'm not sure that makes sense anyway. Yes, for a raid1 with no spares, installing to the array is equivalent to installing to each individual disk, but it helps avoid confusion to ignore this fact and remain thinking in terms of the physical disks, at least as they appear to the bios. > Completely agree. As I said, there are only some cases where you can boot > from an array which uses whole-disks. > One case if in the bios understands the array, such as Intel bios's with IMSM > metadata, or possibly some bioses with DDF metadata. > Another case is RAID1 which starts at the beginning of the device, where the > bios doesn't need to know about the RAID. So how do we tell the difference? Right now grub uses the rule of dmraid = bios aware, so install to the raid device, and mdadm = software raid, so install to the component devices individually. You have noted that in same cases both methods will produce the same results, but grub needs to be certain that whichever method it chooses will work, whether or not either one will. To do this, it needs to install to the raid device if and only if it is a bios recognized fakeraid.