[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: d-i: partitioned md devices? allowed but not supported?



On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 11:17:41PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > If i then place a partition on the resulting device (md0) I can add
> > partitions for /, /usr, swap, etc. The installer partition wizard will
> > create /dev/md0pX devices.
> 
> These are not well supported by anything.  Lilo will croak. grub is grub is
> grub, and will eat grub instead of working.  The kernel people sounded not
> very commited to partitioned md devices last time I looked after it (because
> I **HATE** more than one md device per disk, as the md driver is stupid
> enough to not know about other md devices in the same disk and does stupid
> things).
> 
> I suggest you go with lvm2 (or other device-manager based system) on top of
> a simple md array.  It is much safer in the long run, even if it means
> initrds (yuck).
> 
As long as you place / (and /boot, if seperate) on a small non-LVM
partition (it can even be RAID1), then you are fine to boot without an
initrd.

> > IMHO we should disable paritioning md devices or at least print out a
> > warning, that mdadm needs to create the device files.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> > BTW: does anybody know how to auto-start more than one (the first?) raid
> > error by the kernel?
> 
> "error"?
> 
> I always auto-start at least three md devices, it works just like one
> expects it to.  But don't expect *NESTED* md devices to autostart.  In fact,
> don't nest md devices, it ain't safe, it is one of those places where the
> bugs have never been really shaken out of the system.
> 

Agreed.  Last night I was installing on some old hardware and I had a
hard drive go bad after the first reboot.  The drive was on /dev/md1.
All three arrays (md0, md1, and md2) came up, with only md1 in a
degraded state.

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto

Attachment: pgpdvoTkHv73k.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: