also sprach Cameron Hutchison [2010.08.17.0207 +0200]:
> My /dev/sd[bc]1 partitions are of type 0xFD. /dev/md0 has a version
> 00.90 superblock.
>
> If I upgrade this kernel, or upgrade to the new stable when it's
> released, is this box going to stop booting?
Not for now, as long as the md driv
"Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." writes:
>In <20100815190053.ga4...@gandalf.home.lxtec.de>, Elimar Riesebieter wrote:
>>How do I set up mdadm to create the root array witout an initramfs?
>You can't.
When did this change?
I have a box (my NAS) that is running Debian stable (lenny) with a
custom 2.6.30
In <4c69742e.3080...@hardwarefreak.com>, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>martin f krafft put forth on 8/16/2010 10:26 AM:
>>> I prefer LSI and Intel raid cards. I should have said merely LSI
>>> as the Intel cards are licensed LSI cards. Hardware raid isn't as
>>> flexible as softraid as it works at the en
Sam Leon put forth on 8/16/2010 9:49 AM:
> I haven't messed with windows since xp. But I do remember on xp you
> could not have any software raid on the same partition that you booted
> from. Which made it pointless... Did they change the functionality in
> vista or 7 or something?
I was referrin
also sprach Stan Hoeppner [2010.08.16.1923 +0200]:
> > … until your controller dies and you find out that the manufacturer
> > does not support the firmware anymore and your data are lost.
>
> Ever heard of spares? If not you've not been in this game long.
I've had cases where the spares simply
martin f krafft put forth on 8/16/2010 10:26 AM:
>> I prefer LSI and Intel raid cards. I should have said merely LSI
>> as the Intel cards are licensed LSI cards. Hardware raid isn't as
>> flexible as softraid as it works at the entire disk level, but boy
>> is it so much easier to work with,
>
also sprach Stan Hoeppner [2010.08.16.1514 +0200]:
> This has always been one of my hangups regarding using linux mdraid (or any
> soft OS raid) vs hardware raid--proper and seamless handling of a raid
> protected boot device, including issues beyond the topic of this thread. I
> hate admitting i
On 08/16/2010 08:14 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. put forth on 8/15/2010 5:34 PM:
In<20100815190053.ga4...@gandalf.home.lxtec.de>, Elimar Riesebieter wrote:
How do I set up mdadm to create the root array witout an initramfs?
You can't. mdadm is a user-space binary that can'
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. put forth on 8/15/2010 5:34 PM:
> In <20100815190053.ga4...@gandalf.home.lxtec.de>, Elimar Riesebieter wrote:
>> How do I set up mdadm to create the root array witout an initramfs?
>
> You can't. mdadm is a user-space binary that can't be compiled into the
> kernel images.
* martin f krafft [100816 07:33 +0200]:
> also sprach Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. [2010.08.16.0034
> +0200]:
> > Last I checked, it is possible to have the kernel itself start the
> > root array, via a (series of) kernel command-line arguments.
> > However, this doesn't use mdadm or any of its configu
also sprach Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. [2010.08.16.0034
+0200]:
> Last I checked, it is possible to have the kernel itself start the
> root array, via a (series of) kernel command-line arguments.
> However, this doesn't use mdadm or any of its configuration files.
That only works for the deprecated
In <20100815190053.ga4...@gandalf.home.lxtec.de>, Elimar Riesebieter wrote:
>How do I set up mdadm to create the root array witout an initramfs?
You can't. mdadm is a user-space binary that can't be compiled into the
kernel images. Therefore, to run mdadm you need an initramfs, or the file
sys
Hi all,
I've set up a new machine with sw raid1. / and /boot are on
seperated arrays. raid1 support is compiled direct into 2.6.35.1.
The machine is only bootable with an initramfs created by the hints
in /usr/share/doc/mdadm/README.upgrading-2.5.3.gz.
How do I set up mdadm to create the root arr
13 matches
Mail list logo
