On Tue, 2020-05-26 at 11:07 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 5/26/20 4:15 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Mon, 2020-05-25 at 23:22 -0500, Gabriel Ramirez wrote:
> > > On 5/25/20 5:23 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > > > Yes, I understand that. I still think the behaviour of mdadm in this
> >
On 5/26/20 4:15 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Mon, 2020-05-25 at 23:22 -0500, Gabriel Ramirez wrote:
On 5/25/20 5:23 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Yes, I understand that. I still think the behaviour of mdadm in this
case is counter-intuitive. When I explicitly ask for the creation of an
ar
On Tue, 2020-05-26 at 09:32 -0500, Roger Heflin wrote:
> If you want the name to stay the same then create a file in
>
> /etc/mdadm.conf with something like this in it:
>
> # mdadm.conf written out by anaconda
>
> MAILADDR root
>
> AUTO +imsm +1.x -all
>
>
>
> ARRAY /dev/md13 metadata=1.2 le
If you want the name to stay the same then create a file in
/etc/mdadm.conf with something like this in it:
# mdadm.conf written out by anaconda
MAILADDR root
AUTO +imsm +1.x -all
ARRAY /dev/md13 metadata=1.2 level=raid6 num-devices=7
name=localhost.localdomain:11 UUID=a54550f7:da200f3e:90606715:0
On Mon, 2020-05-25 at 23:22 -0500, Gabriel Ramirez wrote:
> On 5/25/20 5:23 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > Yes, I understand that. I still think the behaviour of mdadm in this
> > case is counter-intuitive. When I explicitly ask for the creation of an
> > array called /dev/md0 and the command f
On 5/25/20 5:23 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Yes, I understand that. I still think the behaviour of mdadm in this
case is counter-intuitive. When I explicitly ask for the creation of an
array called /dev/md0 and the command first of all warns me that this
will (not "may") destroy the existing p
On Tue, 2020-05-26 at 05:42 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 2020-05-26 00:24, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > I still ended up with /dev/md127p1 as before, and /dev/md0 wa's not
> > created.
>
> I didn't think you would. As I mentioned in another post, you didn't start
> out with a "fresh" drive.
On 2020-05-26 00:24, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> I still ended up with /dev/md127p1 as before, and /dev/md0 wa's not
> created.
I didn't think you would. As I mentioned in another post, you didn't start out
with a "fresh" drive. It already
had info on it that mdadm had created and then just re
On Mon, 2020-05-25 at 07:49 -0500, Roger Heflin wrote:
> His issue was he did the manual mount on /raid (already in fstab with
>
> a different device) and systemd immediately unmounted it. The mount
>
> succeeds with no error, and the umount happens so fast you are left
>
> confused about what
