From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Greaves Subject: Re: In this partition scheme, grub does not find md information? Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:03:13 +0000 Message-ID: <47A05971.1020507@dgreaves.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> <479F4CFC.5060305@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <479F4CFC.5060305@pobox.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Moshe Yudkowsky , Neil Brown Cc: Peter Rabbitson , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, Michael Tokarev List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 26 Oct 2007, Neil Brown wrote: >On Thursday October 25, david@dgreaves.com wrote: >> I also suspect that a *lot* of people will assume that the highest superblock >> version is the best and should be used for new installs etc. > > Grumble... why can't people expect what I want them to expect? Moshe Yudkowsky wrote: > I expect it's because I used 1.2 superblocks (why > not use the latest, I said, foolishly...) and therefore the RAID10 -- Aha - an 'in the wild' example of why we should deprecate '0.9 1.0 1.1, 1.2' and rename the superblocks to data-version + on-disk-location :) David