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

Re: mdadm and UUIDs for its component drives



On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 3:11 PM, martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org> wrote:
> also sprach Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <luke.leighton@gmail.com> [2011.06.26.1241 +0200]:
>>  * is there an option to mdadm to make it display UUIDs instead of or
>> as well as the disk name?
>
> mdadm -Es

 oo!  yaay!  there is, however, no mention of the fact that these
options display UUIDs, and, confusingly, -s is listed as "only working
with the -R option"... oh wait, that's for Incremental Assembly mode
(eek!)  ok, so -s (or --scan), scan /proc/mdstat, and -E for "show
components".



>>  * also, how about making mention of how mdadm works, in the man page
>> somewhere reaaasonably prominently?
>
> Search manpage for "partitions".

 that's odd.  i read around each part (man mdadm^M /partitions^M),
paragraph back and forwards: no mention of the UUIDs of drive
components of an array was clearly evident.

> Please suggest patches if you find the information insufficient.

 ok.  feeling slightly overwhelmed by the task, my lack of knowledge
on the detailed workings of mdadm somewhat getting in the way, but
i'll do my best.

 l.


> --
>  .''`.   martin f. krafft <madduck@d.o>      Related projects:
> : :'  :  proud Debian developer               http://debiansystem.info
> `. `'`   http://people.debian.org/~madduck    http://vcs-pkg.org
>  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
>
> this product is under strict quality contril with perfect packing and
> quality when leving the factory.please keep away from damp.high
> temperature or sun expose.If found any detectives when purchasing.
> please return the productby airmail to our administration section and
> inform the time, place.and store of this purchase for our
> improvement.We shall give you a satisfactory reply.Thanks for your
> patronage and welcome your comments.
>                                             -- http://www.engrish.com
>


Reply to: