5 messages, 3 authors, 2012-02-09 · open the first message on its own page
From: Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG <hidden>
Date: 2012-02-08 09:01:52
Hi, for now i'm still using grub 0.97 which can only understand metadata 0.9. Are there any advantages of the 1.2 metadata format? Greets, Stefan
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Date: 2012-02-08 22:16:21
On 02/08/2012 01:01 AM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote:
Hi, for now i'm still using grub 0.97 which can only understand metadata 0.9. Are there any advantages of the 1.2 metadata format?
There are a lot of advantages to the 1.x metadata format, but 1.0 is the easiest for bootloaders to deal with. 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 is the same format, just with the superblock in different places. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
From: NeilBrown <hidden>
Date: 2012-02-08 23:59:34
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:16:21 -0800 "H. Peter Anvin" [off-list ref] wrote:
On 02/08/2012 01:01 AM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote:quoted
Hi, for now i'm still using grub 0.97 which can only understand metadata 0.9. Are there any advantages of the 1.2 metadata format?There are a lot of advantages to the 1.x metadata format, but 1.0 is the easiest for bootloaders to deal with. 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 is the same format, just with the superblock in different places.
Hi Peter, wasn't it you who told be that 1.2 was best for boot loaders, as 1.0 uses block 0 which the bootloader also wants, while 1.2 uses a later block. That is why 1.2 is the default. ?? NeilBrown
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Date: 2012-02-09 00:38:08
On 02/08/2012 03:59 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:16:21 -0800 "H. Peter Anvin" [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On 02/08/2012 01:01 AM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote:quoted
Hi, for now i'm still using grub 0.97 which can only understand metadata 0.9. Are there any advantages of the 1.2 metadata format?There are a lot of advantages to the 1.x metadata format, but 1.0 is the easiest for bootloaders to deal with. 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 is the same format, just with the superblock in different places.Hi Peter, wasn't it you who told be that 1.2 was best for boot loaders, as 1.0 uses block 0 which the bootloader also wants, while 1.2 uses a later block. That is why 1.2 is the default.
No, 1.1 uses block 0 which the bootloader wants. Bootloaders need no special enabling to support 0.9 or 1.0 RAID-1. 1.2 requires special enabling, but is workable. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
From: NeilBrown <hidden>
Date: 2012-02-09 01:02:47
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:38:08 -0800 "H. Peter Anvin" [off-list ref] wrote:
On 02/08/2012 03:59 PM, NeilBrown wrote:quoted
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:16:21 -0800 "H. Peter Anvin" [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On 02/08/2012 01:01 AM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote:quoted
Hi, for now i'm still using grub 0.97 which can only understand metadata 0.9. Are there any advantages of the 1.2 metadata format?There are a lot of advantages to the 1.x metadata format, but 1.0 is the easiest for bootloaders to deal with. 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 is the same format, just with the superblock in different places.Hi Peter, wasn't it you who told be that 1.2 was best for boot loaders, as 1.0 uses block 0 which the bootloader also wants, while 1.2 uses a later block. That is why 1.2 is the default.No, 1.1 uses block 0 which the bootloader wants. Bootloaders need no special enabling to support 0.9 or 1.0 RAID-1. 1.2 requires special enabling, but is workable.
Doh - of course. Wasn't thinking straight. So 1.0 is good for boot loaders 1.1 is bad for boot loaders 1.2 is OK for boot loaders and good for other reasons (resizeable devices). Thanks, NeilBrown