Re: RAID1 assembled broken array

[Andre Noll <maan@systemlinux.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 894 bytes --]

On 18:12, Neil Brown wrote:
> > BTW: Why are new arrays still created with 0.90 metadata format by
> > default?
> 
> Because I'm a chicken....
> 
> I guess it probably is time ... but to we make the default 1.0, which
> is compatible with people's expectations, to 1.1 which is generally a
> safer approach (you cannot mount a bare device by mistake).

People will soon have to use 1.x anyway as drives are getting bigger
than 2T. I'd vote for making 1.1 or 1.2 metadata the default for the
reasons Doug pointed out. Failing to mount the bare device if there
is a partition table is IMHO more important than meeting (broken)
expectations.

Maybe we should depricate kernel-level autodetection at the same time
so that using an initramfs becomes mandatory for setups with / on md.

Best
Andre
-- 
The only person who always got his work done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]