On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:22:52PM +0000, Kevin Chadwick wrote: > 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 >
I don't see you fdisk'ing svnd0. That might be interesting. It's had to tell from your info where the disklabel may be written (and thus overwritten). If you could provide the output from disklabel for all these devices that might be insightful. .... Ken
