From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Iustin Pop Subject: Re: Time to deprecate old RAID formats? Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:23:03 +0200 Message-ID: <20071019212303.GB2013@teal.hq.k1024.org> References: <18200.49267.763509.924873@stoffel.org> <18200.53593.687483.120827@stoffel.org> <1192810534.1666.68.camel@firewall.xsintricity.com> <18200.56684.14194.630264@stoffel.org> <1192813877.1666.79.camel@firewall.xsintricity.com> <18200.63987.514073.184865@stoffel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18200.63987.514073.184865@stoffel.org> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: John Stoffel Cc: Doug Ledford , Justin Piszcz , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 02:39:47PM -0400, John Stoffel wrote: > And if putting the superblock at the end is problematic, why is it the > default? Shouldn't version 1.1 be the default? In my opinion, having the superblock *only* at the end (e.g. the 0.90 format) is the best option. It allows one to mount the disk separately (in case of RAID 1), if the MD superblock is corrupt or you just want to get easily at the raw data. As to the people who complained exactly because of this feature, LVM has two mechanisms to protect from accessing PVs on the raw disks (the ignore raid components option and the filter - I always set filters when using LVM ontop of MD). regards, iustin