the rebuild. )
Later...
Greg Oster
is here:
http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/sbin/raidctl/rf_configure.c.diff?r1=1.19r2=1.20
)
Otherwise what you have is just fine..
Later...
Greg Oster
understand the
features and benefits of both, do the analysis, and pick the one that
will work best for you.
Later...
Greg Oster
'!?!?!?!. That wasn't a fun day.)
Later...
Greg Oster
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Rob wrote:
On 9/25/07, Matt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm running a RAID1 mirror on OpenBSD 4.1 (webserver)
On a power failure the parity becomes dirty and needs rewriting, which
results in 1.5 hours 'downtime
what level of risk you can accept,
and go from there...
Later...
Greg Oster
Siju George writes:
On 3/8/07, Greg Oster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Siju George writes:
In my dmesg at one point it says
==
Kernelized RAIDframe activated
dkcsum: wd0 matches BIOS drive 0x80
dkcsum: wd1 matches BIOS drive 0x81
root
Siju George writes:
On 3/8/07, Greg Oster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Kernelized RAIDframe activated
Searching for raid components...
dkcsum: wd0 matches BIOS drive 0x80
dkcsum: wd1 matches BIOS drive 0x81
root on wd0a
rootdev=0x0 rrootdev=0x300 rawdev=0x302
RAIDFRAME
Siju George writes:
On 3/6/07, Greg Oster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Siju George writes:
It's working just fine... just probably telling you a bit more than
you really wanted to know :)
Later...
Greg,
Seeing that you work on RAIDFRAME let me dare to ask you one more thing
Siju George writes:
On 3/6/07, Greg Oster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Siju George writes:
It's working just fine... just probably telling you a bit more than
you really wanted to know :)
Later...
Greg,
Seeing that you work on RAIDFRAME let me dare to ask you one more thing
, the line to really care
about is this one:
Parity status: clean
Is the Raid not working properly?
It's working just fine... just probably telling you a bit more than
you really wanted to know :)
Later...
Greg Oster
questionable...
In any event, 'raidctl -P' isn't going to do anything useful until
you get wd3a (or its replacment) added back into the array
Later...
Greg Oster
CCD vs RAID0..)
Later...
Greg Oster
...
Greg Oster
it, but not to swap on a RAID set...
Later...
Greg Oster
Josh Grosse writes:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 02:28:50PM -0600, Greg Oster wrote:
Josh Grosse writes:
Has anyone using Root on RAID managed to point their dumpdev at a swap sp
ace,
either within a RAID array or on a standard swap partition?
Dumping to a standard swap partition
.)
Later...
Greg Oster
in OpenBSD though :( )
Later...
Greg Oster
.
How long did you wait for the reconstruction to finish?
For the above output, note that it still says reconstructing
for component1... When that finishes, it will say spared.
Later...
Greg Oster
Walter Haidinger writes:
First of all: Thanks for replying to an issue with a
non-generic kernel! I really appreciate that!
That it was a non-generic kernel didn't even cross my mind... it was
an issue w/ RAIDframe, and that's why I responded...
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Greg Oster wrote
to recall a bug related to component
labels on used spares not being updated properly after a reconstruct,
and I think re-running the '-i' option was the workaround...
Later...
Greg Oster
*
c: 160171392 0 unused 0 0 # Cyl 0 -15641
7*
435841403 + 1416925149 = 1852766552 which is greater than 160171392
by 1692595160. If you fix the offset of 'a', I suspect things will
be happier.
Later...
Greg Oster
places in the
DIOCWDINFO code path where ENOSPC is returned... but one of them is
in raidstrategy().
Later...
Greg Oster
in the way of the fsck or
the system coming up... about an hour after it comes up, the disks
are then checked...
It's one of those what are the odds games... allowing the raidctl
to run in the background seems to have the right mix of paranoia and
practicality...
Later...
Greg Oster
raid1 parity: can't read stripe.
Could not verify parity.
Is this early in the initialization or late in the initialization?
Try doing:
dd if=/dev/rsd0d of=/dev/null bs=10m
and see if you get the same error message...
Later...
Greg Oster
Adam PAPAI writes:
Greg Oster wrote:
Adam PAPAI writes:
Hello misc,
I have an IBM xSeries 335 machine with Dual Xeon processor and 2x73GB
SCSI Seagate Barracuda 10K rpm disc. I run OpenBSD 3.8 on it.
When I'm creating the raid array (raidctl -iv raid0), I get the
following error
it's strictly not necessary).
Later...
Greg Oster
Adam PAPAI writes:
Greg Oster wrote:
Adam PAPAI writes:
After reboot my dmesg end:
rootdev=0x400 rrootdev=0xd00 rawdev=0xd02
Hosed component: /dev/sd0d.
raid0: Ignoring /dev/sd0d.
raid0: Component /dev/sd1d being configured at row: 0 col: 1
Row: 0 Column: 1 Num Rows: 1 Num
in the face of drives that move about or drives that fail to spin
up... (the old config code needs to find its way into a bit-bucket..)
You really want to use the autoconfigure bits.. :) Really. :)
Later...
Greg Oster
RAIDframe
devices. If the underlying device can provide something that looks/
smells like a disk partition, that's good enough for RAIDframe.
Later...
Greg Oster
the
latest versions of the documentation, and to provide feedback
to the author on what you feel is lacking.
Later...
Greg Oster
Andy Hayward writes:
On 2/1/06, Greg Oster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter Fraser writes:
and as a result all file writes to the failed
drive queued up in memory,
I've never seen that behaviour... I find it hard to believe that
you'd be able to queue up 2 days worth of writes
case RAIDFRAME_GET_COMPONENT_LABEL:
there is a:
RF_Free( clabel, sizeof(RF_ComponentLabel_t));
missing before the:
return(EINVAL);
But that won't help with the problem your describing... (just noticed
the above as I was perusing the code..)
Later...
Greg Oster
and try again.
Yup.
Do you have the cycles to get a bug in queue for the one you spotted on
a quick once-over, before someone gets nailed by THAT one? I could open
it, but it
would merely say didn't run into the problem, but Greg Oster says its an
obvious bug... ;-)
I mentioned it here
Nick Holland writes:
Greg Oster wrote:
...
Here's what I'd encourage you (or anyone else) to do:
actually, I'd encourage you do try your own test. Results were interesting.
Well... as we see, you did *your* version of the test, not mine ;)
1) Create a ccd as you describe in the HOWTO
that difference, and how it
warned you that if the primary drive died that you'd have incorrect
data. If they don't differ, go buy a lottery ticket, cause it's
your lucky day! ;)
Later...
Greg Oster
35 matches
Mail list logo
