You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I'm pretty sure the current heuristics would miss that the two first disks in this example (my dev box) are part of a raid, because the sdX1 partition has no mountpoint. Instead there is an additional raid device below, which doesn't share a common prefix with the disk device and thus wouldn't be noticed. So RAID users beware for now.
roman:/local # lsblk
NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT
sda 8:0 0 7.3T 0 disk
└─sda1 8:1 0 7.3T 0 part
└─md127 9:127 0 7.3T 0 raid1 /local
sdb 8:16 0 7.3T 0 disk
└─sdb1 8:17 0 7.3T 0 part
└─md127 9:127 0 7.3T 0 raid1 /local
sdk 8:160 1 119.1G 0 disk
├─sdk1 8:161 1 256M 0 part
├─sdk2 8:162 1 3.7G 0 part
└─sdk3 8:163 1 1G 0 part
sr0 11:0 1 387.6M 0 rom
sr1 11:1 1 1024M 0 rom
nvme0n1 259:0 0 953.9G 0 disk
├─nvme0n1p1 259:1 0 500M 0 part /boot/efi
├─nvme0n1p2 259:2 0 128G 0 part [SWAP]
└─nvme0n1p3 259:3 0 825.4G 0 part /
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I'm pretty sure the current heuristics would miss that the two first disks in this example (my dev box) are part of a raid, because the
sdX1
partition has no mountpoint. Instead there is an additional raid device below, which doesn't share a common prefix with the disk device and thus wouldn't be noticed. So RAID users beware for now.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: