| 1 |
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Kerin Millar <kerframil@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 05/04/2010 00:12, Mark Knecht wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> 1) If you don't specify metadata then you get the newest - I think |
| 5 |
>> that's currently ver. 1.2 or something. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Interesting. I suppose that might be a change in mdadm-3.0 (a version which |
| 8 |
> I have yet to use to create any new arrays). However, that would contradict |
| 9 |
> the man page which still says: |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> "0, 0.90, default" |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
>> 2) I tried 1.0 this morning (shown below) which didn't fix it. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Right. Any version above in the 1 series (1, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2) will not work. |
| 16 |
> I'm certain that reverting to the original format is going to resolve the |
| 17 |
> issue and that we've just been barking up the wrong tree(s) hitherto. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> --Kerin |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I'm emerging gentoo-sources in the chroot now. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
One thing about this that still confuses me is where /dev/md3, or |
| 24 |
whatever, comes from when I boot if the the mknod command is never |
| 25 |
executed within the chrrot. (As per the install guide.) Not a big deal |
| 26 |
to proceed and see what happens. Maybe the kernel just creates it |
| 27 |
based on discovering the RAID? Or it makes it because I explicitly |
| 28 |
define it at the command line? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
As I say, no big deal to just push forward but that's still a question |
| 31 |
for me at this point. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Cheers, |
| 34 |
Mark |
Archives