[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4877c76c1002131307i61a3c985w8db8c10623a693c8@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 13:07:22 -0800
From: Michael Evans <mjevans1983@...il.com>
To: david@...g.hm
Cc: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@...idpixels.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 12:49 PM, <david@...g.hm> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010, Justin Piszcz wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/11/2010 05:52 PM, Michael Evans wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@...idpixels.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I may be converting a host to ext4 and was curious, is 0.90 still the
>>>>> only
>>>>> superblock version for mdadm/raid-1 that you can boot from without
>>>>> having to
>>>>> create an initrd/etc?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are there any benefits to using a superblock > 0.90 for a raid-1 boot
>>>>> volume
>>>>> < 2TB?
>>>>>
>>>>> Justin.
>>>>> --
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid"
>>>>> in
>>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
>>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You need the superblock at the end of the partition: If you read the
>>>> manual that is clearly either version 0.90 OR 1.0 (NOT 1.1 and also
>>>> NOT 1.2; those use the same superblock layout but different
>>>> locations).
>>>
>>> 0.9 has the *serious* problem that it is hard to distinguish a
>>> whole-volume
>>>
>>> However, apparently mdadm recently switched to a 1.1 default. I
>>> strongly urge Neil to change that to either 1.0 and 1.2, as I have
>>> started to get complaints from users that they have made RAID volumes
>>> with newer mdadm which apparently default to 1.1, and then want to boot
>>> from them (without playing MBR games like Grub does.) I have to tell
>>> them that they have to regenerate their disks -- the superblock occupies
>>> the boot sector and there is nothing I can do about it. It's the same
>>> pathology XFS has.
>>>
>>> -hpa
>>>
>>
>> My original question was does the newer superblock do anything special or
>> offer new features *BESIDES* the quicker resync?
>
> the older superblocks have limits on the number of devices that can be part
> of the raid set.
>
> David Lang
>
The 1.1 and 1.2 formats ALSO play more nicely with stacking partition
contents. LVM, filesystems, and partition info all begin at the start
of a block device; putting the md labels there too makes it obvious
what order to unpack the structures in.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists