From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Tokarev Subject: Re: In this partition scheme, grub does not find md information? Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:26:38 +0300 Message-ID: <47A74ACE.6020802@msgid.tls.msk.ru> 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> <47A05971.1020507@dgreaves.com> <18343.16913.671817.87174@stoffel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <18343.16913.671817.87174@stoffel.org> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: John Stoffel Cc: David Greaves , Moshe Yudkowsky , Peter Rabbitson , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids John Stoffel wrote: [] > C'mon, how many of you are programmed to believe that 1.2 is better > than 1.0? But when they're not different, just just different > placements, then it's confusing. Speaking of "more is better" thing... There were quite a few bugs fixed in recent months wrt version 1 superblocks - both in kernel and in mdadm. While 0.90 format is stable for a very long time, and unless you're hitting its limits (namely, max 26 drives in an array, no "homehost" field), there's nothing which makes v1 superblocks better than 0.90 ones. In my view, "better" = stable first, faster/easier/whatever second. /mjt