From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Moshe Yudkowsky Subject: Re: In this partition scheme, grub does not find md information? Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:57:48 -0600 Message-ID: <479F4CFC.5060305@pobox.com> References: <479EAF42.6010604@pobox.com> <18334.46306.611615.493031@notabene.brown> <479F07E1.7060408@pobox.com> <479F0AAB.3090702@rabbit.us> <479F331F.7080902@msgid.tls.msk.ru> <479F3C74.1050605@rabbit.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <479F3C74.1050605@rabbit.us> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Rabbitson Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Peter Rabbitson wrote: > [*] The layout is the same but the functionality is different. If you > have 1+0 on 4 drives, you can survive a loss of 2 drives as long as they > are part of different mirrors. mdadm -C -l 10 -n 4 -o n2 > however will _NOT_ survive a loss of 2 drives. In my 4 drive system, I'm clearly not getting 1+0's ability to use grub out of the RAID10. I expect it's because I used 1.2 superblocks (why not use the latest, I said, foolishly...) and therefore the RAID10 -- with even number of drives -- can't be read by grub. If you'd patch that information into the man pages that'd be very useful indeed. Thanks for your attention to this! -- Moshe Yudkowsky * moshe@pobox.com * www.pobox.com/~moshe "no user serviceable parts below this line" -- From a Perl program by mengwong@pobox.com