Hi,

after a little trial-and-error I now know that (for me) this is the
difference between a non-bootable system (for symptoms see my initial
mail) and a bootable one:

        $ diff -u 3.1.2-2.1/lib/udev/rules.d/64-md-raid.rules 
/lib/udev/rules.d/64-md-raid.rules 
        --- 3.1.2-2.1/lib/udev/rules.d/64-md-raid.rules 2010-08-25 
23:30:07.814576367 +0200
        +++ /lib/udev/rules.d/64-md-raid.rules  2010-08-25 23:47:46.300056953 
+0200
        @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@
         ATTR{md/array_state}=="|clear|inactive", GOTO="md_end"
         LABEL="md_ignore_state"
         
        -IMPORT{program}="/sbin/mdadm --detail --export $tempnode"
        +#IMPORT{program}="/sbin/mdadm --detail --export $tempnode"
         ENV{DEVTYPE}=="disk", ENV{MD_NAME}=="?*", 
SYMLINK+="disk/by-id/md-name-$env{MD_NAME}", OPTIONS+="string_escape=replace"
         ENV{DEVTYPE}=="disk", ENV{MD_UUID}=="?*", 
SYMLINK+="disk/by-id/md-uuid-$env{MD_UUID}"
         ENV{DEVTYPE}=="disk", ENV{MD_DEVNAME}=="?*", 
SYMLINK+="md/$env{MD_DEVNAME}"

This seems logical since:

a) There were no changes to /lib/udev/rules.d/64-md-raid.rules 
   between 3.0.3-2 and 3.1.2-2.1:

        $ md5sum 3.0.3-2/lib/udev/rules.d/64-md-raid.rules 
3.1.2-2.1/lib/udev/rules.d/64-md-raid.rules 
        4a574fcd059040d33ea18a8aa605a184  
3.0.3-2/lib/udev/rules.d/64-md-raid.rules
        4a574fcd059040d33ea18a8aa605a184  
3.1.2-2.1/lib/udev/rules.d/64-md-raid.rules

   However the older version works fine, see my previous mail. So it 
   makes sense that line causing the problems is the one actually 
   calling the (changed) mdadm binary.

b) This command is what I saw in `top', see `screen7.jpg' from my 
   initial mail.

Any thoughts on this?

Alexander Kurtz

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply via email to