Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.

[david]

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010, Michael Evans wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
> <volkerarmin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 0.90 has a very bad problem, which is that it is hard to distinguish
> > > between a RAID partition at the end of volume and a full RAID device.
> > > This is because 0.90 doesn't actually tell you the start of the device.
> > >
> > > Then, of course, there are a lot of limitations on size, number of
> > > devices, and so on in 0.90.
> >
> > but it is the only format supporting autodetection.
> >
> > So - when will autodetection be introduced with 1.X? And if not, why not?
> >
> > All I found was 'autodetection might be troublesome' and nothing else.
> >  But dealing with initrds is troublesome too. Pure evil even.
> >
> > Gl?ck Auf,
> > Volker
> > --
> > 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
>
> I remember hearing that 1.x had /no/ plans for kernel level
> auto-detection ever.  That can be accomplished in early-userspace
> leaving the code in the kernel much less complex, and therefore far
> more reliable.
>
> In other words, 'auto-detection' for 1.x format devices is using an
> initrd/initramfs.

hmm, I've used 1.x formats without an initrd/initramfs (and without any 
conifg file on the server) and have had no problem with them being 
discovered. I haven't tried to use one for a boot/root device, so that may 
be the difference.

David Lang