In <[🔎] 20090430141527.GC28027@khazad-dum.debian.net>, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: >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: >> >> 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). He who codes, decides. Either put forth the effort to design/write/review/test/apply the patch or don't be surprised if your preferences are not highly weighted in the resulting code. That said, I think everyone participating in the thread so far has agreed that we don't want separately-maintained detection code in LVM that could get out of date, but for LVM to use the existing detection code when it is available on the system. >This kind of stuff really should not be done halfway, it can suprise someone >into a dataloss scenario. Right now, LVM will stomp all over devices with either 0.90 or 1.0 superblocks. Even if it can only detect one or the other and not both, it will cause less data loss than now. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.