On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 12:37:38 +0200 martin f krafft <madd...@debian.org> wrote:
> also sprach Martin Michlmayr <t...@cyrius.com> [2010.06.08.1124 +0200]: > > > It would be safer to use > > > mdadm -As > > > to ensure all arrays are assembled, then > > > mdadm -Ds > > > to create mdadm.conf > > > > > > ... but why do you even want to create mdadm.conf ??? > > > > I'll let madduck answer this. > > I have not yet found a way to ensure stable device names without an > mdadm.conf, so I have not yet made it optional. The current push to > UUID-based device access in combination with incremental assembly > might be the key. > That is fair enough. So if you goal is to create an mdadm.conf which will ensure that the current arrays will continue to have the names that they have now, then it would be best to use "mdadm -Ds" to create that mdadm.conf as it will use the names that the arrays have now. "mdadm -E" will use the names that the arrays would have if they were auto-assembled. NeilBrown -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
