> > Does this mean we no longer have to start raid partitions at block 1
> > instead of block zero?
>
> I'm sorry, but I have no idea of what you're referring to...
See David's messages of 17/09/99 in the "Problem with mkraid for /dev/md0"
thread. David's curious experience and resulting misconception was left
unresolved, from what I can remember. Hence the continued confusion. Is the
original experience detailed in those messages anything to do with the fact that
David's system is Sparc-based? Or something to do with having to specify disk
geometry at boot-time? I don't know, but it's nothing to do with a limitation of
RAID.
Anyway, the simple answer is no. The new-style RAID superblocks have always been
at the end of the partitions, so this typo changes nothing in practice.
Cheers,
Bruno Prior [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jakob Østergaard
> Sent: 04 November 1999 15:17
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: superblock Q/clarification
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 10:01:41AM -0500, David Cooley wrote:
> ...
> >
> > Does this mean we no longer have to start raid partitions at block 1
> > instead of block zero?
>
> I'm sorry, but I have no idea of what you're referring to...
>
> When accessing the RAID device you can't see that there is a superblock
> at all. You can't access the superblock via valid accesses to the MD
> device.
>
> I might be misunderstanding your question... When did you ever have to
> start anything at block 1 instead of block 0 ?
>
> (Gee, I hope this isn't in the HOWTO as well ;)
>
> --
> ................................................................
> : [EMAIL PROTECTED] : And I see the elder races, :
> :.........................: putrid forms of man :
> : Jakob Østergaard : See him rise and claim the earth, :
> : OZ9ABN : his downfall is at hand. :
> :.........................:............{Konkhra}...............:
>
>
