On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:36:41 +0200 Claudio Jeker wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 08:47:03PM +0000, Kevin Chadwick wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:18:20 +0000 > > Kevin Chadwick wrote: > > > > > /sbin/disklabel -E wd1 > > > /sbin/vnconfig -ck svnd0 /dev/wd1a > > > /sbin/disklabel -E svnd0 > > > /sbin/newfs /dev/rsvnd0a > > > /sbin/newfs /dev/rsvnd0d > > > > > > /sbin/disklabel -E wd0 > > > /sbin/vnconfig -ck svnd1 /dev/wd0l > > > /sbin/disklabel -E svnd1 > > > /sbin/newfs /dev/rsvnd1a > > > > > > reboot, I guess disklabel -c would do the same > > > > > > wd0l and svnd1 work fine (disklabels visible and work fine) > > > > > > I have to recreate the disklabel for wd1 and svnd0 after which it works > > > fine untill the next reboot (data accessed). > > > > Anyone got even a hunch why wd1a and wd0l as used above behave > > repeatably differently. > > > > Are you sure you can use /dev/wd1a as backend file for a vnd? From my > understanding block devices should not be used for anything that does file > IO. So have you tried /dev/rwd1a instead in the vnconfig command? >
Well it works on wd0l but I don't know how efficient or reliable either are. I've switched back to files now anyway, I'll wait for dd and use bioctl on very large drives. Using the c partition is obviously very wrong, not only is it fscked but seems a lot slower at newfs atleast. I'll bear it in mind if I ever do any tests in the future though. Thanks
