On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 01:22:21PM -0400, Tom H wrote: > On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Sean Murray <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> RAID0: LOL. If I suggested using RAID0, even on a simple dev box, I'd > >> either be asked to clear my desk on the spot or my name would rise > >> immediately to #1 on the headcount-reduction list... > > > > That is supposed to be RAID1, I think Konstantin has a buggy keyboard > > as well ;-) > > Oh! So Konstantin's confusing 0s and 1s. Maybe he's produced by Intel! ;)
I wish. Unlink the Intel fdiv bug which yielded wrong results consistently, my brain does it randomly. > I now remember the bug. There was a public bug to which Harald posted > a possible fix a few weeks after it was reported and there was a > private bug, where most of the real discussion and work must've taken > place that resulted in a fix and an advisory after 4 or 5 months. Far > too long, I agree... Yes, the bug was "no boot if 1 disk of a mirrored set is missing". As follow up, here I report that I duely tested the fix, confirmed that I can boot with either of the 2 disks missing, pushed this into a production machine, which now happily does not boot at all with both disks present (one has to do the "rdshell, mdadm -As, continue" dance, then it boots). If you have seen the dracut md code, you would wonder why it boot ever at all, ever. -- Konstantin Olchanski Data Acquisition Systems: The Bytes Must Flow! Email: olchansk-at-triumf-dot-ca Snail mail: 4004 Wesbrook Mall, TRIUMF, Vancouver, B.C., V6T 2A3, Canada
