| 1 |
On Tuesday 26 August 2014 17:00:37 Kerin Millar wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 26/08/2014 15:54, Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Tuesday 26 August 2014 14:21:19 Kerin Millar wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> On 26/08/2014 10:38, Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 5 |
> >>> On Monday 25 August 2014 18:46:23 Kerin Millar wrote: |
| 6 |
> >>>> On 25/08/2014 17:51, Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 7 |
> >>>>> On Monday 25 August 2014 13:35:11 Kerin Millar wrote: |
| 8 |
> > --->8 |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> >> Again, can you find out what the exit status is under the circumstances |
| 11 |
> >> that mdadm produces a blank error? I am hoping it is something other |
| 12 |
> >> than 1.> |
| 13 |
> > I've remerged mdadm to run this test. I'll report the result in a moment. |
| 14 |
> > [...] In fact it returned status 1. Sorry to disappoint :) |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Thanks for testing. Can you tell me exactly what /etc/mdadm.conf |
| 17 |
> contained at the time? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
It was the installed file, untouched, which contains only comments. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> LVM has nothing to do with md. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
No, I know. I was just searching around for sources of info. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> When I talk about 1.x metadata, I am talking about the md superblock. |
| 26 |
> You can find out what the metadata format is like so:- |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> # mdadm --detail /dev/md7 | grep Version |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
That's what I was looking for - thanks. It shows version 0.90. I did suspect |
| 31 |
that before, as I said, but couldn't find the command to check. If I had, I |
| 32 |
might not have started this thread. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
So all this has been for nothing. I was sure I'd set 1.x metadata when |
| 35 |
creating the md device, but I must eat humble pie and glare once again at my |
| 36 |
own memory. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Many thanks for the effort you've put into this for me. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
Regards |
| 42 |
Peter |
Archives