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

Re: RAID1 with multiple partitions



Tom H wrote:
> The lenny box is using metadata v0.9 and there is a "(local to...)" on
> the UUID line. It was created without specifying either "--homehost="
> or "--name=" when running "mdadm --create" on a running system (using
> the standard "sfdisk -d ... | sfdisk ..." and "mdadm --create ...",
> etc).

Well...  You didn't add those options to the command line but you did
set up HOMEHOST in your configuration file, right?  (That is how I
read the thread.)  In which case the options were very likely added
for you automatically because you had the HOMEHOST set in your file.
That is what I am deducing from this discussion.  That having HOMEHOST
set in the mdadm.conf file causes that behavior.

> The squeeze box is using metadata v1.2 and there is a name line with
> "(local to host...)" both for an array created by the installer and an
> array created without specifying either "--homehost=" or "--name="
> when running "mdadm --create ...".
> 
> So I have no idea why your output doesn't show "(local to host...)"!

I think it is because I never set HOMEHOST in the configuration file.
(Actually when I created that machine I did so using the
debian-installer and so rather I should say that the d-i didn't set
that configuration.  But looking now at other arrays that I set up
manually I see the same thing.  So it isn't d-i magic.)

Next time you set up a raid machine try an experiment and avoid
setting up HOMEHOST as well.  Instead use the debian-installer from an
official cdrom to set up the raid and then examine the result.  Since
that is how my data was produced I think you should get the same
result.  At that point I hadn't had any opportunity to customize the
machine yet.  It was just installed and configured from a pristine d-i
install.  And also try setting up an array manually but without having
HOMEHOST set in the configuration file.

Bob

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: