Greg Cormier wrote:
Any reason 0.9 is the default? Should I be worried about using 1.0
superblocks? And can I upgrade my array from 0.9 to 1.0 superblocks?
Do understand that Neil may have other reasons... but mainly the 0.9
format is the default because it is most widely supported and
Neil Brown wrote:
On Tuesday October 30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which is the default type of superblock? 0.90 or 1.0?
The default default is 0.90.
However a local device can be set in mdadm.conf with e.g.
CREATE metdata=1.0
If you change to 1.start, 1.ed, 1.4k names for
Any reason 0.9 is the default? Should I be worried about using 1.0
superblocks? And can I upgrade my array from 0.9 to 1.0 superblocks?
Thanks,
Greg
On 11/1/07, Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday October 30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which is the default type of superblock? 0.90 or
On Tuesday October 30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which is the default type of superblock? 0.90 or 1.0?
The default default is 0.90.
However a local device can be set in mdadm.conf with e.g.
CREATE metdata=1.0
NeilBrown
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in
Which is the default type of superblock? 0.90 or 1.0?
On 10/30/07, Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday October 26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can someone help me understand superblocks and MD a little bit?
I've got a raid5 array with 3 disks - sdb1, sdc1, sdd1.
--examine on
On Friday October 26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can someone help me understand superblocks and MD a little bit?
I've got a raid5 array with 3 disks - sdb1, sdc1, sdd1.
--examine on these 3 drives shows correct information.
However, if I also examine the raw disk devices, sdb and sdd,
why you zeroing hdd ? should you clear sdd?
On 10/26/07, Greg Cormier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can someone help me understand superblocks and MD a little bit?
I've got a raid5 array with 3 disks - sdb1, sdc1, sdd1.
--examine on these 3 drives shows correct information.
However, if I also
