[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B7A2250.5020909@anonymous.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 04:42:56 +0000
From: John Robinson <john.robinson@...nymous.org.uk>
To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input)
CC: Linux RAID <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.
On 16/02/2010 03:18, david@...g.hm wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
>> On 02/15/2010 04:27 PM, Neil Brown wrote:
>>
>> There are three options:
>>
>> a) either don't boot from it (separate /boot);
>> b) use a bootloader which installs in the MBR and
>> hopefully-unpartitioned disk areas (e.g. Grub);
>> c) use a nonstandard custom MBR.
>>
>> Neither (b) or (c), of course, allow for chainloading from another OS
>> install and thus are bad for interoperability.
>
> I have had no problems with XFS partitions and lilo as the bootloader.
> I've been doing this for a couple of years now without realizing that
> there is supposed to be a problem.
There isn't, if you use partitions. It could (would) go wrong if you
tried to put an XFS filesystem, or md RAID with a v1.1 superblock, on a
whole disc without a partition table *and* you tried to put a bootloader
on. I can't say it's ever occurred to me to do that, because I always
assumed that whatever I put in a partition used all of it, and I
couldn't expect to double-book the beginning of it and have it work.
Cheers,
John.
--
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