RE: RAID b/w GPT and NON GPT partition.
> Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 18:41:35 -0400
> From: garydale@torfree.net
>
> On 01/07/15 03:24 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Jul 2015, Gary Dale wrote:
>>> The size of the RAID array is set by the smallest partition so if you
>>> want to be able to boot from either drive, then putting the ef02
>>> partition in the free space on the new drive means that you will
>>> either not be able to boot from the old drive should the new drive
>>> fail, or you will have different partition tables on each drive.
>> This is precisely why you should have the EF02 partition on every single
>> drive in the raid set and run grub-install on all of them (or at the
>> very least, one more than the number of drives that can fail and still
>> assemble the array).
>
> You missed the point that this would require different partition tables
> on the two drives.
Whose point was that? It certainly wasn't the OP's, who asked to have a
GPT partition table on the second disk of a raid array, whilst the
first had MBR.
> Moreover, if you ever replaced the original drive
> with a larger one, you would have to install LVM to get around the ef02
> partition
This makes no sense. There is no "around" if you created the ef02
partition in the first available sectors of the disk, as everyone has
been advocating. Nor would it make sense to "work around" a partition
of less than 1MB, you would only need to "work around" it if you made
it unsensibly large, like the 100MB you seem to favour. And why would
you want identical partition tables across drives of different sizes
in the first place?
> [LVM] an added layer of complexity that you shouldn't need.
Sure. Because no one would ever need to resize or migrate volumes
without downtime. Don't patronize people by telling them what they do
or do not need. We have seen more than enough of that already.
> However you seem to have conceded the larger point about UEFI which M$
> is trying to make mandatory.
The way I read the thread is that people have been trying to correct
your misconceptions, not argue with you. But meh, I'm sure I'm reading
it wrong.
Regards,
Arno
Reply to: