On 26/08/2014 17:49, Peter Humphrey wrote:
On Tuesday 26 August 2014 17:00:37 Kerin Millar wrote:
On 26/08/2014 15:54, Peter Humphrey wrote:
On Tuesday 26 August 2014 14:21:19 Kerin Millar wrote:
On 26/08/2014 10:38, Peter Humphrey wrote:
On Monday 25 August 2014 18:46:23 Kerin Millar wrote:
On 25/08/2014 17:51, Peter Humphrey wrote:
On Monday 25 August 2014 13:35:11 Kerin Millar wrote:
--->8
Again, can you find out what the exit status is under the circumstances
that mdadm produces a blank error? I am hoping it is something other
than 1.>
I've remerged mdadm to run this test. I'll report the result in a moment.
[...] In fact it returned status 1. Sorry to disappoint :)
Thanks for testing. Can you tell me exactly what /etc/mdadm.conf
contained at the time?
It was the installed file, untouched, which contains only comments.
LVM has nothing to do with md.
No, I know. I was just searching around for sources of info.
When I talk about 1.x metadata, I am talking about the md superblock.
You can find out what the metadata format is like so:-
# mdadm --detail /dev/md7 | grep Version
That's what I was looking for - thanks. It shows version 0.90. I did suspect
that before, as I said, but couldn't find the command to check. If I had, I
might not have started this thread.
So all this has been for nothing. I was sure I'd set 1.x metadata when
creating the md device, but I must eat humble pie and glare once again at my
own memory.
Not to worry. However, I still think that it's a bug that mdadm behaves
as it does, leading to the curious behaviour of the mdraid script.
Please consider filing one and, if you do so, cc me into it. I have an
interest in pursuing it.
--Kerin
