Re: RAID5 (mdadm) array hosed after grow operation (there are two of us)
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> In <[🔎] 20090429192819.GB1598@khazad-dum.debian.net>, Henrique de Moraes
> Holschuh wrote:
> >On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, martin f krafft wrote:
> >> also sprach Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> [2009.04.29.1522
> +0200]:
> >> > As always, you MUST forbid lvm of ever touching md component
> >> > devices even if md is offline, and that includes whatever crap is
> >> > inside initrds...
> >> One should thus fix LVM to be a bit more careful...
> >It would need to start refusing devices with a raid superblock (all
> > types), unless forced.
>
> The feature doesn't have to be perfect out of the box. It could initially
> just match 0.90 version superblocks and be extended later.
1.0 superblocks are widely used. Please don't do that. Either implement
support for both, or use mdadm (which knows both).
This kind of stuff really should not be done halfway, it can suprise someone
into a dataloss scenario.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
Reply to: