From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Clinton Lee Taylor Subject: Re: RAID1 assembled broken array Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 21:21:44 +0200 Message-ID: References: <9F2F4760-DF0C-4416-89AC-C689177AD4ED@redhat.com> <65549e07fd6559855af68b60783213c3.squirrel@neil.brown.name> <20090917082528.GO5174@skl-net.de> <19132.31575.349988.442763@notabene.brown> <20090926095834.GP5174@skl-net.de> <4ABE108C.9030606@anonymous.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4ABE108C.9030606@anonymous.org.uk> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: John Robinson Cc: Linux RAID List-Id: linux-raid.ids >>>> BTW: Why are new arrays still created with 0.90 metadata format by >>>> default? >>> >>> Because I'm a chicken.... >>> >>> I guess it probably is time ... but to we make the default 1.0, which >>> is compatible with people's expectations, to 1.1 which is generally a >>> safer approach (you cannot mount a bare device by mistake). >> >> People will soon have to use 1.x anyway as drives are getting bigger >> than 2T. I'd vote for making 1.1 or 1.2 metadata the default for the >> reasons Doug pointed out. Failing to mount the bare device if there >> is a partition table is IMHO more important than meeting (broken) >> expectations. >> >> Maybe we should depricate kernel-level autodetection at the same time >> so that using an initramfs becomes mandatory for setups with / on md. > > It already is deprecated; afaik all the recent distros already use an > initramfs, even if they still use 0.90 metadata. > > I second making this a priority to get into the next round of distro > updates, for all the reasons given. As soon as metadata version upgrade > facilities go in to mdadm, 0.90 metadata can also be deprecated and perhaps > mdadm can issue warnings, or at least the kernel autoassembly code can start > issuing warnings (if it doesn't already). All this talk of metadata 1.x, what about all the metadata 0.90 RAID array's out there? What is needed for an upgrade or conversion? Would a conversion program need to understand the under lying filesystem? Thanks Mailed LeeT