Re: [klibc] Re: Exporting which partitions to md-configure
From: Luca Berra
Date: Tue Feb 07 2006 - 11:45:38 EST
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 07:46:59AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Luca Berra wrote:
I don't like using partition type as a qualifier, there is people who do
not wish to partition their drives, there are systems not supporting
msdos like partitions, heck even m$ is migrating away from those.
That's why we're talking about non-msdos partitioning schemes.
this still leaves whole disks
If the user wants to reutilize a device that was previously a member of
an md array he/she should use mdadm --zero-superblock to remove the
superblock.
I see no point in having a system that tries to compensate for users not
following correct procedures. sorry.
You don't? That surprises me... making it harder for the user to have
accidental data loss sounds like a very good thing to me.
making it harder for the user is a good thing, but please not at the
expense of usability
the only way i see a user can have data loss is if
- a md array is stopped
- two different filesystems are created on the component devices
- these filesystems are filled with data, but not to the point of
damaging the superblock
- then the array is started again.
if only one device is removed using mdadm the event counter would
prevent the array from being assembled again.
there are a lot of easier ways for shooting yourself in the feet :)
if we really want to be paranoid we should modify mkXXXfs to refuse
creating a filesystem if the device has an md superblock on it. (lvm2
tools are already able to ignore devices with md superblocks on them,
no clue about EVMS)
L.
--
Luca Berra -- bluca@xxxxxxxxxx
Communication Media & Services S.r.l.
/"\
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
X AGAINST HTML MAIL
/ \
-
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/