From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luca Berra Subject: Re: Software RAID 0+1 with mdadm. Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:01:58 +0100 Message-ID: <20050127160158.GB21230@percy.comedia.it> References: <20050126151703.GA2040@percy.comedia.it> <16888.31506.646380.934873@cse.unsw.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16888.31506.646380.934873@cse.unsw.edu.au> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 04:24:34PM +1100, Neil Brown wrote: >On Wednesday January 26, ryan@dynaconnections.com wrote: >> This bug that's fixed in 1.9.0, is in a bug when you create the array? ie >> do we need to use 1.9.0 to create the array. I'm looking to do the same but >> my bootdisk currently only has 1.7.soemthing on it. Do I need to make a >> custom bootcd with 1.9.0 on it? > >This issue that will be fixed in 1.9.0 has nothing to do with creating >the array. > >It is only relevant for stacked arrays (e.g. a raid0 made out of 2 or >more raid1 arrays), and only if you are using > mdadm --assemble --scan >(or similar) to assemble your arrays, and you specify the devices to >scan in mdadm.conf as > DEVICES partitions >(i.e. don't list actual devices, just say to get them from the list of >known partitions). actually the last statement is not true, a missing close(mdfd); causes mdadm --assemble --scan to fail the first round even if you do specify DEV /dev/mdX in mdadm.conf. L. -- Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it Communication Media & Services S.r.l. /"\ \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN X AGAINST HTML MAIL / \