From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jon Nelson Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] mdadm-3.1 has been withdrawn Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 09:42:11 -0600 Message-ID: References: <19187.50708.551325.297625@notabene.brown> <4AF829B2.5090001@redhat.com> <4AF836F8.5040903@panix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4AF836F8.5040903@panix.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:36 AM, berk walker wrote: > Doug Ledford wrote: >> Although the cause for this sucks, I was actually going to suggest t= hat >> since 3.1 is a version bump, that we take the opportunity to change = a >> few defaults. =A0Like switching to version 1 superblocks instead of >> version 0 by default. =A0And changing the default chunk size to 512k >> instead of 64k. =A0The time has simply come for the 0->1 superblock >> change, and I have a good deal of data showing that for SATA disks a= t >> least, the 512k chunk size is the typical sweet =A0spot. >> > =A0+1 +1 here, too. I've been using 1.1 for everything. What's the current wisdom regarding 1.0 vs 1.1 or 1.2? I used 1.1 because that's also where filesystem metadata usually goes and therefore one might hope that the presence of the md metadata would prevent accidental identification of a raid volume as containing a filesystem. --=20 Jon -- 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