mmmmmm... I thought it was to save ~500K in the kernel: http://openbsd.org/faq/faq14.html#Optraid
Is there any other reason? Cheers Marco Peereboom wrote: > RAIDFrame is disabled in GENERIC for a reason you know. > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 10:08:48AM -0700, Tom Bombadil wrote: >> Yes... I agree with with you... not really my decision at the time, >> since I didn't work here... but I guess the thought was that RaidFrame >> would provide more uptime in case of multiple harddrive failures, and >> not really data protection. >> >> Thanks Daniel >> >> Daniel Ouellet wrote: >>> Tom Bombadil wrote: >>>> One funny story about redundancy in general: we run raidframe to mirror >>>> the 2 disks in the system... And like I said both firewalls were >>>> crashing together... After the crash our allegedly redundant firewalls >>>> were both down for 20 minutes for parity rebuilding... simplicity is a >>>> beautiful thing ;) >>> May be that's just me, but a very simple question for you. If you have >>> redundant firewall and I guess you are running CARP on them right? Why >>> would you even have raidframe setup on a firewall. >>> >>> Isn't it the KISS gold principal would dictate otherwise here. Specially >>> for a firewall. A good firewall needs the minimum setup on it. >>> >>> Obviously I may be talking none sense here, but RaidFrame on a firewall >>> is the last place I would put it. >>> >>> What kind of data do you want to protect on a RaidFrame. The list of bad >>> ssh attackers for your PF configurations? Must be a HUGE list to needs >>> RaidFrame for it! (;> >>> >>> Just a thought, may be review your setup might be much better then >>> trying to get new hardware, but that's just me. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Daniel
