From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Tokarev Subject: Re: Time to deprecate old RAID formats? Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 22:38:55 +0400 Message-ID: <471A4B3F.907@msgid.tls.msk.ru> 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> <18200.57042.989520.666476@stoffel.org> <1192813477.1666.74.camel@firewall.xsintricity.com> <1192814581.1666.87.camel@firewall.xsintricity.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Justin Piszcz Cc: Doug Ledford , John Stoffel , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Justin Piszcz wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Doug Ledford wrote: > >> On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 13:05 -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote: [] >>> Got it, so for RAID1 it would make sense if LILO supported it (the >>> later versions of the md superblock) >> >> Lilo doesn't know anything about the superblock format, however, lilo >> expects the raid1 device to start at the beginning of the physical >> partition. In otherwords, format 1.0 would work with lilo. > Did not work when I tried 1.x with LILO, switched back to 00.90.03 and > it worked fine. There are different 1.x - and the difference is exactly this -- location of the superblock. In 1.0, superblock is located at the end, just like with 0.90, and lilo works just fine with it. It gets confused somehow (however I don't see how really, because it uses bmap() to get a list of physical blocks for the files it wants to access - those should be in absolute numbers, regardless of the superblock locaction) when the superblock is at the beginning (v 1.1 or 1.2). /mjt