Re: MD or MDADM bug?

[Tyler <pml@dtbb.net>]

Neil Brown wrote:

>On Friday September 2, dstrang@shellpower.net wrote:
>  
>
>>>Sorry.  Add
>>>   -e 1
>>>      
>>>
>>Well, I'm quite happy to report --- that worked!
>>    
>>
>
>Excellent!
>
>  
>
>>So, once I get the bad drive replaced; and the array re-synced -- will I 
>>want to stop the array, and execute:
>>
>>mdadm -C /dev/md0 -e1 -l5 -n28 -c 128 --name=md/md0 -p la /dev/sd[a-z] 
>>/dev/sda[ab]
>>
>>Just so I don't have a problem with a disk 'not really' being part of the 
>>array? IE; mdadm: /dev/sdm is identified as a member of /dev/md0,
>>slot -1.
>>    
>>
>
>That shouldn't be necessary.  Providing you are using mdadm-2.0, you
>should just be able to --add the drive and everything should work
>fine.
>
>  
>
>>Also, most of the drives -- have no partitions on them (ie; cfdisk 
>>/dev/sda) -- Can I add them and set the type to FD so it will autodetect the 
>>raid? Or must I do that prior to raid creation?
>>    
>>
>Type FD doesn't work with version-1 superblocks.  The kernel will not
>auto-assemble them at all.  Just use mdadm to assemble them (in an
>rc.d script).
>
>NeilBrown
>
Neil, is this something that will be changed in the future, where FD 
partition types will work with version 1 superblocks again at some point?

Tyler.