From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Robinson Subject: Re: grub2/grub-pc install not possible on mdadm Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 09:38:34 +0000 Message-ID: <4F54899A.4040301@anonymous.org.uk> References: <4F4C9A11.9060302@profihost.ag> <4F4F4B1D.4050000@redhat.com> <4F4F4EB3.6030909@profihost.ag> <4F4F519E.7040206@redhat.com> <4F508864.4050600@profihost.ag> <20120302100648.fe4e725f2e98880c839357b0@bbaw.de> <4F508EB6.2030101@profihost.ag> <4F5091BF.1000102@anonymous.org.uk> <4F509402.8070503@profihost.ag> <4F50ABA3.1070603@anonymous.org.uk> <4F50C7DC.3000700@profihost.ag> <20120302163236.3555fec1296cbe30d8d37972@bbaw.de> <4F547038.7060009@profihost.ag> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4F547038.7060009@profihost.ag> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_T=E4uber?= , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 05/03/2012 07:50, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: > Am 02.03.2012 16:32, schrieb Lars T=E4uber: >> Hi Stefan, >> >> the metadata versions 1.0 and 1.1 and 1.2 are the same but for the p= osition of >> the metadata on disk. Simply use metadata version 1.0 and everything= works as >> with 0.9. >> >> Grub does to read partition tables inside raid devices. Sure it does, but that's not the point. >> Because a raid1 with metadata 1.0 or 0.9 looks like a plain disk to = grub it >> can read a partition table like there was no raid array. =46or the fourth time, no. Because a RAID1 with metadata 0.9 or 1.0 looks like a plain disc to the= =20 BIOS, it can read a partition table like there was no RAID array, and=20 therefore the BIOS can load GRUB. > Ah OK thanks. using Metadata 1.0 works fine. It will work OK, but just be very, very careful never to run a GPT=20 partition tool directly on /dev/sda or /dev/sdb, because it will write=20 the backup of the GPT partition table at the end of the disc,=20 potentially destroying the metadata for the array. You would still be safer having partition tables on the drives, and=20 building your array(s) from those partition(s), the opposite way round=20 from how you are doing it just now. Cheers, John. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html