[CentOS] Bare drive RAID question, was RE: *very* ugly mdadm issue [Solved, badly]
Valeri Galtsev
galtsev at kicp.uchicago.eduFri Sep 5 19:56:33 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, September 5, 2014 2:02 pm, Stephen Harris wrote: > For me I have things like > sda1 > sdb2 > sdc3 > sdd4 > and I align the partitions to the physical slot. What do you do when it comes to 5,... (as MBR only supports 4 primary partitions ;-) ? > 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. > That's why I like the [block] device naming strictly derived from topology of machine (e.g. FreeBSD does it that way), then you know, which physical drive (or other block device, e.g. attached hardware RAID) a device /dev/da[x] is. I remember hassle when Linux switched numbering of network interfaces eth0, eth1,... from order the are "detected" in to reverse order (which probably stemmed from pushing them into stack then pulling them back) - or was it other way around? Valeri ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
- 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