Re: [klibc] Re: Exporting which partitions to md-configure

[Luca Berra <bluca@comedia.it>]

On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 07:46:59AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>Luca Berra wrote:
>>
>>I don't like using partition type as a qualifier, there is people who do
>>not wish to partition their drives, there are systems not supporting
>>msdos like partitions, heck even m$ is migrating away from those.
>>
>
>That's why we're talking about non-msdos partitioning schemes.

this still leaves whole disks

>>If the user wants to reutilize a device that was previously a member of
>>an md array he/she should use mdadm --zero-superblock to remove the
>>superblock.
>>I see no point in having a system that tries to compensate for users not
>>following correct procedures. sorry.
>
>You don't?  That surprises me... making it harder for the user to have 
>accidental data loss sounds like a very good thing to me.

making it harder for the user is a good thing, but please not at the
expense of usability

the only way i see a user can have data loss is if
- a md array is stopped
- two different filesystems are created on the component devices
- these filesystems are filled with data, but not to the point of
  damaging the superblock
- then the array is started again.

if only one device is removed using mdadm the event counter would
prevent the array from being assembled again.

there are a lot of easier ways for shooting yourself in the feet :)

if we really want to be paranoid we should modify mkXXXfs to refuse
creating a filesystem if the device has an md superblock on it. (lvm2
tools are already able to ignore devices with md superblocks on them,
no clue about EVMS)

L.
-- 
Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it
        Communication Media & Services S.r.l.
 /"\
 \ /     ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
  X        AGAINST HTML MAIL
 / \