From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jon Nelson Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] mdadm-3.1 has been withdrawn Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:22:50 -0600 Message-ID: References: <19187.50708.551325.297625@notabene.brown> <4AF829B2.5090001@redhat.com> <4AF836F8.5040903@panix.com> <4AF8847D.8030303@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson = wrote: > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, Doug Ledford wrote: > >> Of course, I recently had a bug report that I ended closing out as N= OTABUG >> because of this very ability. =A0The person had arrays with 1.2 supe= rblocks, >> and they went to add a new disk, and all the existing disks had a sp= ecific >> partition layout, so he copied that to the new disk, then tried to a= dd the >> partition to the raid array. =A0It kept returning "device too small = for >> array". =A0Then, upon inspection, we come to see he has a 1.2 superb= lock on >> the *entire* drive, which left the partition table intact, but the p= artition >> table is *pointless* because the array is on the whole disk devices.= =A0This >> sort of confusion is bad. =A0So, while I could see making it 1.2 for >> partitions (so that boot sectors won't overwrite the superblock), I = wouldn't >> make it 1.2 for whole disk devices, and in fact it might be wise to = refuse >> to create 1.2 superblocks on whole disk devices. =A0Just a thought. > > Well, same thing there, if you create a partition table you don't bre= ak the > superblock. Perhaps something needs to be able to discern between the > superblock being "whole disk" and on a partition? Personally I put 1.= 2 on > "whole disk" (no partition table at all), and I would really HATE thi= s > possibility going away. I like it the way it is and feel comfortable = with it > and I don't want 1.0 or 1.1 superblocks in my setup. Since I almost always use partitions (this way, the partition *type* is "Linux RAID") I largely avoid this issue. --=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