On Thursday 03 February 2005 07:31, you wrote:
> If I include this patch should I depend/suggest mdadm?
No, just use it if it's there (that's one reason why I included the '-x'
test). If mdadm is not there, it's most probably not a software raid
system anyway.
As you can see, if anything goes wrong in the new function, update-grub
reverts to old behavior.
> What about just parsing /proc/mdstat?
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# cat /proc/mdstat
> Personalities : [raid0]
> read_ahead 1024 sectors
> md0 : active raid0 sdb1[1] sda1[0]
> 71681792 blocks 4k chunks
>
> unused devices: <none>
This is the output of /proc/mdstat on an installed system:
Personalities : [raid1]
read_ahead 1024 sectors
md1 : active raid1 ide/host0/bus0/target0/lun0/part9[0]
scsi/host0/bus0/target0/lun0/part1[1]
12956288 blocks [2/2] [UU]
md0 : active raid1 ide/host0/bus0/target0/lun0/part5[0]
35840896 blocks [2/1] [U_]
unused devices: <none>
This is the output of mdadm -D -b /dev/md0 on the same system:
ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid1 num-devices=2
UUID=7b48753a:12078a9c:6460070e:951f510f
devices=/dev/hda5
As you can see, using /proc/mdstat would require a conversion from kernel
notation of the device that's found.
AFAICT mdadm always provides the correct notation.
Cheers,
Frans
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
