From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luca Berra Subject: Re: what superblock to use Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:24:54 +0200 Message-ID: <20090420212454.GC5550@maude.comedia.it> References: <20090420141702.GC17461@maude.comedia.it> <20090420193914009.EBTN9976@cdptpa-omta03.mail.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090420193914009.EBTN9976@cdptpa-omta03.mail.rr.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: 'Linux RAID' List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 02:39:05PM -0500, Leslie Rhorer wrote: > >> >what's the current recommended superblock to use for a newly created >> >raid5-6 array with 6 pieces of 1tb disk? by default mdamd use 0.90. is >> >it worth to change it to any 1.x format? >> 0.9 has some limitations that 1.x do not have, none apply in your case >> max_components = 28 >> max_size of component=2TB > >Oops! I did not realize this when I built my array. I'm going to need to >grow the array to 3T components after the 3T drives are released. Can the >superblock be changed on an existing array, or does it have to be rebuilt >from scratch? If the latter, I'm glad I learned this now, because I may >have to rebuild the array, anyway, to try to alleviate the halt issue I am >experiencing. afaik it cannot be changed after creation if you have free space you could play tricks reducing the fs, recreating the array with the exact same parameters except metadata and --assume-clean (you are limited to using 1.0 in this case) anyway do a backup before trying this. L. -- Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it Communication Media & Services S.r.l. /"\ \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN X AGAINST HTML MAIL / \