On Tuesday 22 April 2008, martin f krafft wrote: > > Partman currently prefers the use of /dev/md/X and uses that when > > creating new RAID devices. This results in both /dev/md/X and /dev/mdX > > block device files being created. > > The latter should be symlinks.
Hmm. They are not, at least not in D-I. What's responsible for creating them: udev or mdadm itself? > > I've been working on the assumption that /dev/md/X is the "newer" form > > and that the intention is to transition to that. Is that correct? > > Sort of. /dev/md/* corresponds to version-1 superblocks, which are > supposed to be default in the future, but still are not. I suggest > you ensure that partman creates version-0 superblocks for now, until > upstream changes the default. We do. The superblock is version-0, but mdcfg does use /dev/md/X (and has done since its original upload in 2004). What we do for new RAID devices is: mdadm --create /dev/md/$MD_NUM --auto=yes --force -R -l <type> <dev spec> > But in any case, mdadm should not create /dev/md/X files if you tell > it to create /dev/mdX instead (passing --auto=yes). Sure, but it does when the above call is used, or when you have ARRAY /dev/md/X ... in the config file. > > Here are some of the inconsistencies I've noticed: > > - /dev/mdX and /dev/md/X are created with different permissions > > This is weird. All I've ever seen were /dev/mdX symlinks to > /dev/md/X. Are you sure those are created by the same process? Yes. It seems that maybe we should currently not be using /dev/md/X at all in the installer. Especially since the installed system will probably also _not_ have them since it creates a new config file based on output of 'mdadm --detail --scan'... What do you think? Cheers, FJP
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
