Re: from raidtools2 to mdadm

[Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>]

Neil Brown wrote:

>On Tuesday June 21, cs@tequila.co.jp wrote:
>  
>
>>On 06/21/2005 02:54 PM, Neil Brown wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>>#> mdadm --detail --scan>> mdadm.conf
>>>>
>>>>is enought to get the raid started the next time I have to reboot
>>>>the box.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>1/ remove the 'devices=' parts.  Then it should be ok, providing there
>>>   is a suitable DEVICES line at the top.
>>>      
>>>
>>yeah I have a devices line on the top. If I don't have, I will need the
>>devices lines I guess.
>>    
>>
>
>No..
>The 'devices=' bits by themselves aren't enough, and are rarely
>wanted.
>If a device isn't listed in the DEVICES lines, then it won't be
>considered for use in an array.
>
>The 'devices=' words are quite different.  They say "this is how you
>recognise a device that is in this array.  All the devices in it are
>on this list".
>This is reported by "mdadm --detail --scan" largely for interest.  It
>should rarely be included in mdadm.conf.  The very latest version ofn
>mdadm does not report them unless --verbose is given.
>

So is there no way to ask mdadm to take what's running and create a 
config to make it happen again? Telling people to cread the man pages 
for a utility they did not use by choice and create a config file which 
could result in losing their data if it's wrong is a deterent to an 
upgrade, I suspect.

It would be desirable to follow the example of iptables, to allow rules 
to be configured by hand (more or less) and then have a tool to create a 
config file from what's there. A human readable editable file at that.

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO TMR Associates, Inc
  Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979