Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 07:43:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 07:43:22 -0500 Received: from dial249.pm3abing3.abingdonpm.naxs.com ([216.98.75.249]:2831 "EHLO ani.animx.eu.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 07:43:15 -0500 Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 07:52:35 -0500 From: Wakko Warner To: Igmar Palsenberg Cc: Peter Samuelson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RAID superblock Message-ID: <20001029075235.A1773@animx.eu.org> In-Reply-To: <20001029044008.A14922@wire.cadcamlab.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.3i In-Reply-To: ; from Igmar Palsenberg on Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 02:36:44PM +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > [Wakko Warner] > > > While this subject is fresh, what would be wrong with using the > > > entire drive as opposed to creating a partition and adding the > > > partition to the raid? > > > > Does it autodetect an entire drive? The autodetect logic for > > partitions looks at the 'partition type' byte, which of course doesn't > > exist for a whole drive. Actually, I don't think it does. I've not booted into single user mode (where the raid hasn'tbeen setup yet) to see. > > Just a thought .. I don't run RAID here. > > A good one. I seriously doubt that it indeed will detect drives. The're > not partitions, the're drives. > > Don't think the current RAID code handles entire drives. Autodetect, probably not. But it doesn't seem to have any problems with it as far as usability. -- Lab tests show that use of micro$oft causes cancer in lab animals - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/