Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[Justin Piszcz]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > 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?

Justin.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/