On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III <ti...@math.uh.edu> wrote: >>>>>> "CM" == Chris Murphy <li...@colorremedies.com> writes: > > CM> The installer right now, against upstream mdadm dev's explicit > CM> advice, sets up an mdadm raid1 using (I think deprecated 0.9 > CM> metadata format but could also work with 1.0 format). > > And I'm really happy that it does; I have used that configuration for > years on a number of machines and have had good luck. I had previously > run multiple ESPs with something to sync between them and it also > worked, but was actually more fragile in practice. > > So to me it's a toss up between two bad choices, foisted on us by the > shortsightedness of whichever committee of committees "designed" UEFI. > Their solution was obviously to either tell everyone to use a "real" > RAID controller or use "BIOS RAID" (and these days, maybe pay Intel for > a physical license key/VROC dongle).
UEFI makes it possible to implement consistent reliable fallbacks to multiple ESPs, and explicit ordering. This isn't defined with BIOS at all. I have a fair amount of experience with Apple's software RAID in macOS, and for solidly a decade it's had a reliable mechanism of syncing the bootloader configuration among multiple drives. So the idea this is only or more reliable with either proprietary firmware features, or bad hacks, is notwithstanding. -- Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/OQT2TTTKREUHVPQ5AMHFYDIBN64DBDRJ/
