On 6/28/2010 11:53 AM, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote: > It came with a 40G drive. I replaced it with a 120G drive. I > initialized by dd'ing the whole 40G drive to the 120G drive (not > partition by partition) using a live CD and then using the usual Linux > tools to adjust the partitioning. All this was it 2004 January. So any > RAID fingerprint would have come from the original 40G drive supplied by > eMachines. RAID and Promise are nowhere to be found in the user guide.
Actually the metadata would not have been copied from the 40g drive since only the first 40g of the new drive would have been written to by dd, and the raid metadata lives at the very end of the drive. Sounds like you bought the 120g drive on ebay from someone who had been using it in a raid. > There is no Promise controller on this machine and yet the RAID > fingerprint discovered was for a Promise format. Would it make sense > for dmraid to issue a diagnostic when it finds an anomaly like that? If > so, would it make sense for Ubiquity to make that diagnostic visible to > the (otherwise baffled) user? As I said before, it would make sense for ubiquity to indicate the disks are part of a raid and give the option to erase the raid metadata. -- Ubiquity can't find the sata hard disk (promise 376 chip) https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/543008 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
