On 7/22/2010 3:08 AM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 03:02:33AM -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
On 7/22/2010 2:59 AM, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
On 22.07.2010 10:32, Dan Langille wrote:
I'm not sure of the criteria, but this is what I'm running:

atapci0:<SiI 3124 SATA300 controller>   port 0xdc00-0xdc0f mem
0xfbeffc00-0xfbeffc7f,0xfbef0000-0xfbef7fff irq 17 at device 4.0 on pci7

atapci1:<SiI 3124 SATA300 controller>   port 0xac00-0xac0f mem
0xfbbffc00-0xfbbffc7f,0xfbbf0000-0xfbbf7fff irq 19 at device 4.0 on pci3

I added ahci_load="YES" to loader.conf and rebooted.  Now I see:

You can add siis_load="YES" to loader.conf for SiI 3124.

Ahh, thank you.

I'm afraid to do that now, before I label my ZFS drives for fear
that the ZFS array will be messed up.  But I do plan to do that for
the system after my plan is implemented.  Thank you.  :)

They won't be messed up.  ZFS will figure out, using its metadata, which
drive is part of what pool despite the device name changing.

I now have:
siis0: <SiI3124 SATA controller> port 0xdc00-0xdc0f mem 0xfbeffc00-0xfbeffc7f,0xfbef0000-0xfbef7fff irq 17 at device 4.0 on pci7

siis1: <SiI3124 SATA controller> port 0xac00-0xac0f mem 0xfbbffc00-0xfbbffc7f,0xfbbf0000-0xfbbf7fff irq 19 at device 4.0 on pci3

And my zpool is now:

$ zpool status
  pool: storage
 state: ONLINE
 scrub: none requested
config:

        NAME        STATE     READ WRITE CKSUM
        storage     ONLINE       0     0     0
          raidz1    ONLINE       0     0     0
            ada0    ONLINE       0     0     0
            ada1    ONLINE       0     0     0
            ada2    ONLINE       0     0     0
            ada3    ONLINE       0     0     0
            ada4    ONLINE       0     0     0

Whereas previously, it was ad devices (see http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=399538+0+current/freebsd-stable).

Thank you (and to Andrey V. Elsukov who posted the same suggestion at the same time you did). I appreciate it.

> I don't
use glabel or GPT so I can't comment on whether or not those work
reliably in this situation (I imagine they would, but I keep seeing
problem reports on the lists when people have them in use.......)

Really? The whole basis of the action plan I'm highlighting in this post is to avoid ZFS-related problems when devices get renumbered and ZFS is using device names (e.g. /dev/ad0> instead of labels (e.g. gpt/disk00).

--
Dan Langille - http://langille.org/
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to