Re: [gentoo-user] Software RAID-1 - FIXED

[Kerin Millar]

On 26/08/2014 17:49, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 August 2014 17:00:37 Kerin Millar wrote:
>> On 26/08/2014 15:54, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 26 August 2014 14:21:19 Kerin Millar wrote:
>>>> On 26/08/2014 10:38, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>>>>> On Monday 25 August 2014 18:46:23 Kerin Millar wrote:
>>>>>> On 25/08/2014 17:51, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday 25 August 2014 13:35:11 Kerin Millar wrote:
>>> --->8
>>>
>>>> Again, can you find out what the exit status is under the circumstances
>>>> that mdadm produces a blank error? I am hoping it is something other
>>>> than 1.>
>>> I've remerged mdadm to run this test. I'll report the result in a moment.
>>> [...] In fact it returned status 1. Sorry to disappoint :)
>>
>> Thanks for testing. Can you tell me exactly what /etc/mdadm.conf
>> contained at the time?
>
> It was the installed file, untouched, which contains only comments.
>
>> LVM has nothing to do with md.
>
> No, I know. I was just searching around for sources of info.
>
>> When I talk about 1.x metadata, I am talking about the md superblock.
>> You can find out what the metadata format is like so:-
>>
>> # mdadm --detail /dev/md7 | grep Version
>
> That's what I was looking for - thanks. It shows version 0.90. I did suspect
> that before, as I said, but couldn't find the command to check. If I had, I
> might not have started this thread.
>
> So all this has been for nothing. I was sure I'd set 1.x metadata when
> creating the md device, but I must eat humble pie and glare once again at my
> own memory.

Not to worry. However, I still think that it's a bug that mdadm behaves 
as it does, leading to the curious behaviour of the mdraid script. 
Please consider filing one and, if you do so, cc me into it. I have an 
interest in pursuing it.

--Kerin