[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       crux
Subject:    Re: Bug in udev rules? [Crux on RAID/LVM (bootloader)]
From:       Michal Soltys <soltys () ziu ! info>
Date:       2010-10-26 21:45:28
Message-ID: 4CC74BF8.7020707 () ziu ! info
[Download RAW message or body]

On 10-10-26 14:11, Wawrzyniec Niewodniczański wrote:
> On 26 October 2010 10:11, Danny Rawlins<d.rawlins@datafast.net.au>  wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Hello,
>
>>  Why do you use partitioned raid?
>>
> Because I can ;). There is no special reason.
>
>>  you should use metadata version 0.90 for the raid 1 metadata location,
>>  it is the only one that lilo and grub supports.
>>
>
> I'm using metadata 0.90 currently so it's not a problem. I guess there
> is a bug in CRUX in device naming/numbering convention as was
> described in previous post.
>

Although I'm starting peeking into crux recently, its udev rules are 
pretty much standard (besides 2 small outdated files installed, but they 
have no md related rules whatsoever). mdadm's behaviour is either to 
rely on udev (if it's running) or rely on pre-3.0 behaviour (if udev is 
not running) - in latter case creating the necessary nodes and symlinks 
itself (and names and major/minor numbers might get unusual, depening on 
things...). Also, 3.x mdadm ships with stock udev rules file itself, and 
crux port doesn't mess with it in any way or form..

Btw, with some simple dd/degrade/readd tricks, you don't need bootloader 
understanding raid1 (for its boot stuff, so usually tiny partition at 
the beginning), as long as its metadata is kept at the end (so either 
0.9 or 1.0). With [imho far superior] bootmanager like syslinux it's 
even simpler (no need to look after stuff like stage1_5).

_______________________________________________
CRUX mailing list
CRUX@lists.crux.nu
http://lists.crux.nu/mailman/listinfo/crux

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]