Please explain status/background of /dev/mdX versus /dev/md/X
elendil at planet.nl
Tue Apr 22 15:25:49 UTC 2008
(Please reply to debian-boot; reply-to set.)
Over the past few weeks I've solved several issues in D-I related to the use
of /dev/mdX versus /dev/md/X and I've been wondering what the official
status is of both as it seems there are at least some inconsistencies.
Partman currently prefers the use of /dev/md/X and uses that when creating
new RAID devices. This results in both /dev/md/X and /dev/mdX block device
files being created.
I've been working on the assumption that /dev/md/X is the "newer" form and
that the intention is to transition to that. Is that correct?
Here are some of the inconsistencies I've noticed:
- /dev/mdX and /dev/md/X are created with different permissions
- if a new RAID device is created using /dev/mdX, the "new" block device
files are _not_ created
- 'mdadm --examine --scan --config=partitions' outputs the "old" block
device names which again means that the "new" block devices are not
created if that is used as input to assemble existing RAID devices
Especially the last issue affected partman when the system being installed
had a pre-existing RAID partition setup. I've now worked around that in
mdcfg by converting old to new using sed before doing the assemble.
Could you provide some insight into what the current status is from an mdadm
(and maybe kernel) upstream PoV and how the transition is expected to
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-mdadm-devel/attachments/20080422/1f619d8c/attachment.pgp
More information about the pkg-mdadm-devel