Sorry, long posponed email here: I'm sending it because the last
retorical questions are still relevent.
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009, Neil Brown wrote:
metadata=0.9 would never work. It is a version number, not a decimal
number. metadata=0.90 is correct and totally different from
metada
On Monday August 31, robe...@debath.co.uk wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009, martin f krafft wrote:
>
> > Why specify it in the first place? I suggest to remove all metadata=
> > stuff from mdadm.conf. Inspect the /usr/share/mdadm/mkconf output.
>
> I didn't.
>
> It got added automatically... Bug?
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009, martin f krafft wrote:
Why specify it in the first place? I suggest to remove all metadata=
stuff from mdadm.conf. Inspect the /usr/share/mdadm/mkconf output.
I didn't.
It got added automatically... Bug?
--
Rob. (Robert de Bath )
also sprach Robert de Bath [2009.08.30.2025 +0200]:
> mdadm is VERY touchy about the metadata= item in the
> /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf file.
>
> For example I've just done an upgrade and the upgrade script put
> metadata=0.9 in the file. This was not acceptable to "mdadm -A" only
> when I changed it
mdadm is VERY touchy about the metadata= item in the /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf
file.
For example I've just done an upgrade and the upgrade script put
metadata=0.9 in the file. This was not acceptable to "mdadm -A" only when
I changed it to metadata=0.90 was "mdadm -A" able to assemble the array.
5 matches
Mail list logo
