On Tue, 2020-05-26 at 05:42 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: > On 2020-05-26 00:24, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > I still ended up with /dev/md127p1 as before, and /dev/md0 wa's not > > created. > > I didn't think you would. As I mentioned in another post, you didn't start > out with a "fresh" drive. It already > had info on it that mdadm had created and then just reused. If you wanted to > do a really new set-up > you would have had to done something like "dd if=/dev/zero of=" to both of > the physical drives.
Yes, I understand that. I still think the behaviour of mdadm in this case is counter-intuitive. When I explicitly ask for the creation of an array called /dev/md0 and the command first of all warns me that this will (not "may") destroy the existing partition table and do I want to proceed, then when I say yes apparently succeeds, I think I'm entitled to think that /dev/md0 has been created, but it hasn't. poc _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
