[CentOS] Bare drive RAID question, was RE: *very* ugly mdadm issue [Solved, badly]
Stephen Harris
lists at spuddy.orgFri Sep 5 19:02:56 UTC 2014
- Previous message: [CentOS] Bare drive RAID question, was RE: *very* ugly mdadm issue [Solved, badly]
- Next message: [CentOS] Bare drive RAID question, was RE: *very* ugly mdadm issue [Solved, badly]
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 08:01:05AM -0600, Warren Young wrote: > So the real question is, why do you believe you need to make each RAID > member a *partition* on a disk, instead of just take over the entire > disk? Unless you're going to do something insane like: For me I have things like sda1 sdb2 sdc3 sdd4 and I align the partitions to the physical slot. This makes it easier to see what is the failed disk; "sdc3 has fallen out of the array; that's the disk in slot 3". Because today's sdc may be tomorrow's sdf depending on any additional disks that have been added or kernel device discover order changes or whatever. -- rgds Stephen
- Previous message: [CentOS] Bare drive RAID question, was RE: *very* ugly mdadm issue [Solved, badly]
- Next message: [CentOS] Bare drive RAID question, was RE: *very* ugly mdadm issue [Solved, badly]
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the CentOS mailing list