From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
Subject: Re: RAID1 assembled broken array
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:07:44 +1000
Message-ID: <19132.31312.353493.453529@notabene.brown>
References: <h8ophd$n8p$6@ger.gmane.org>
	<9F2F4760-DF0C-4416-89AC-C689177AD4ED@redhat.com>
	<65549e07fd6559855af68b60783213c3.squirrel@neil.brown.name>
	<1253076634.7071.5.camel@kiste>
	<F52A8F4D-66B0-4F97-B2C9-6FF207817718@redhat.com>
	<1253207377.9662.551.camel@kiste>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: message from Matthias Urlichs on Thursday September 17
Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Matthias Urlichs <matthias@urlichs.de>
Cc: Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-raid.ids

On Thursday September 17, matthias@urlichs.de wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 12:44 -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> > >> 1.0 also protects from this problem.
> > >
> > > So what's the best way to update a 0.9 superblock to 1.0 format?
> > >
> > > mdadm --assemble --metadata=1.0 --update=summaries ... ?
> > 
> > I don't think you can.  You just have to create a new array with the  
> > new superblock.
> > 
> Hmm. Looks like you're right.
> 
> Consider this to be a feature request, then. If 1.0 is more reasonable
> than 0.9, there should be a "safe" upgrade path.

Yes, definitely.  There should be.

Now if only there were more hours in the day.... :-)

NeilBrown