David Greaves said:     (by the date of Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:55:44 +0100)

How much later? This will, of course, destroy any data on the array (!) and
you'll need to mkfs again...

Just after, I didn't even create LVM volume on it (not mentioning
formatting it).

Also, if you don't mind me asking: why did you choose version 1.1 for the
metadata/superblock version?

In "time to deprecate old RAID formats" Doug Ledford said, that 1.1
is safest when used with LVM. I wish that this info would get into
the man page. I just hope that grub will be able to boot from LVM 
from '/' partition raid1 (version 1.1), I didn't check this yet.


Doug Ledford said:     (by the date of Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:15:34 -0400)

1.0, 1.1, and 1.2 are the same format, just in different positions on
the disk.  Of the three, the 1.1 format is the safest to use since it
won't allow you to accidentally have some sort of metadata between the
beginning of the disk and the raid superblock (such as an lvm2
superblock), and hence whenever the raid array isn't up, you won't be
able to accidentally mount the lvm2 volumes, filesystem, etc.  (In worse
case situations, I've seen lvm2 find a superblock on one RAID1 array
member when the RAID1 array was down, the system came up, you used the
system, the two copies of the raid array were made drastically
inconsistent, then at the next reboot, the situation that prevented the
RAID1 from starting was resolved, and it never know it failed to start
last time, and the two inconsistent members we put back into a clean
array).  So, deprecating any of these is not really helpful.  And you
need to keep the old 0.90 format around for back compatibility with
thousands of existing raid arrays.

-- 
Janek Kozicki                                                         |