On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 01:22:21PM -0400, Tom H wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Sean Murray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>
> >> RAID0: LOL. If I suggested using RAID0, even on a simple dev box, I'd
> >> either be asked to clear my desk on the spot or my name would rise
> >> immediately to #1 on the headcount-reduction list...
> >
> > That is supposed to be RAID1, I think Konstantin has a buggy keyboard
> > as well ;-)
> 
> Oh! So Konstantin's confusing 0s and 1s. Maybe he's produced by Intel! ;)

I wish. Unlink the Intel fdiv bug which yielded wrong results consistently,
my brain does it randomly.

> I now remember the bug. There was a public bug to which Harald posted
> a possible fix a few weeks after it was reported and there was a
> private bug, where most of the real discussion and work must've taken
> place that resulted in a fix and an advisory after 4 or 5 months. Far
> too long, I agree...

Yes, the bug was "no boot if 1 disk of a mirrored set is missing". As follow up,
here I report that I duely tested the fix, confirmed that I can boot
with either of the 2 disks missing, pushed this into a production machine,
which now happily does not boot at all with both disks present (one has
to do the "rdshell, mdadm -As, continue" dance, then it boots). If you have
seen the dracut md code, you would wonder why it boot ever at all, ever.

-- 
Konstantin Olchanski
Data Acquisition Systems: The Bytes Must Flow!
Email: olchansk-at-triumf-dot-ca
Snail mail: 4004 Wesbrook Mall, TRIUMF, Vancouver, B.C., V6T 2A3, Canada