On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 11:31:01PM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: > > How would softraid know which sd to rebuild if 3 are degraded?
That's why 2 arguments are needed, but i would have expected "bioctl -R sd1 softraid0" for the case below. > Not debating the language couldn't be improved but that bit is IMO pretty > obvious. Obvious it probably is, yet adding the word 'final' for the device argument in the manpage description would perhaps make it even more obvious. :-) > > On Oct 23, 2010, at 23:07, Niels Poppe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 07:20:10PM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: > >> > >> Softraid is not a volume manager. We don't support adding, removing chunks > >> after creation time. I'll take diffs for this however this is pretty far > from > >> trivial. > > > > The one piece of information I found a bit unclear in the manual is > > how to rebuild a degraded mirror: > > > > bioctl -R <newchunk> <raid> > > > > where *both* the <newchunk> and the <raid> argument are real disknames, > > as in "bioctl -R sd1 sd2" for a case were physical devices sd0 and sd1 > > formed a mirror creating the softraid device sd2, and sd1 fell offline. > > > > I would indeed have expected the second argument to be softraid<x> > > > > The manual states: > > -R device | channel:target[.lun] > > Manually kick off a rebuild using device or channel:target[.lun] > > on the provided drive name. This command requires a drive by > > name (e.g. sd1) instead of a controller by name (e.g. softraid0). > > > > Perhaps that last sentence could be > > > > "This command requires the final device argument to be the drive name > > (e.g. sd2) instead of the controller name (e.g. softraid0)." > > > > Regards, > > > > Niels
