Re: Vinum R5 [was: Re: background fsck deadlocks with ufs2 and big disk]

2003-03-14 Thread Greg 'groggy' Lehey
On Friday, 14 March 2003 at 10:05:28 +0200, Vallo Kallaste wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:16:02PM +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> So I did. Loaned two SCSI disks and 50-pin cable. Things haven't >>> improved a bit, I'm very sorry to say it. >> >> Sorry for the slo

Re: Vinum R5 [was: Re: background fsck deadlocks with ufs2 and big disk]

2003-03-14 Thread Vallo Kallaste
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:16:02PM +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So I did. Loaned two SCSI disks and 50-pin cable. Things haven't > > improved a bit, I'm very sorry to say it. > > Sorry for the slow reply to this. I thought it would make sense to > try things out here

Re: Vinum R5 [was: Re: background fsck deadlocks with ufs2 and big disk]

2003-03-13 Thread Greg 'groggy' Lehey
On Saturday, 1 March 2003 at 20:43:10 +0200, Vallo Kallaste wrote: > On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 11:53:02AM +0200, Vallo Kallaste wrote: > The vinum R5 and system as a whole were stable without softupdates. Only one problem remained after disabling softupdates, while being online and u

Re: Vinum R5 [was: Re: background fsck deadlocks with ufs2 and big disk]

2003-03-01 Thread Vallo Kallaste
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 11:53:02AM +0200, Vallo Kallaste wrote: > > > The vinum R5 and system as a whole were stable without > > > softupdates. Only one problem remained after disabling softupdates, > > > while being online and user I/O going on, rebuilding of failed disk > > > corrupt the R5 vol

Re: Vinum R5 [was: Re: background fsck deadlocks with ufs2 and big disk]

2003-02-27 Thread Vallo Kallaste
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 11:59:59AM +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The crashes and anomalies with filesystem residing on R5 volume were > > related to vinum(R5)/softupdates combo. > > Well, at one point we suspected that. But the cases I have seen were > based on a misa

Re: Vinum R5 [was: Re: background fsck deadlocks with ufs2 and big disk]

2003-02-26 Thread Greg 'groggy' Lehey
On Friday, 21 February 2003 at 1:56:56 -0800, Terry Lambert wrote: > Vallo Kallaste wrote: >> The crashes and anomalies with filesystem residing on R5 volume were >> related to vinum(R5)/softupdates combo. The vinum R5 and system as >> a whole were stable without softupdates. Only one problem rema

Re: Vinum R5 [was: Re: background fsck deadlocks with ufs2 and big disk]

2003-02-26 Thread Greg 'groggy' Lehey
On Friday, 21 February 2003 at 10:00:46 +0200, Vallo Kallaste wrote: > On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 02:28:45PM -0800, Darryl Okahata > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Vallo Kallaste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> I'll second Brad's statement about vinum and softupdates >>> interactions. My last exper

Re: Vinum R5 [was: Re: background fsck deadlocks with ufs2 and big disk]

2003-02-24 Thread Terry Lambert
Darryl Okahata wrote: > Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think this is an expected problem with a lot of concatenation, > > whether through Vinum, GEOM, RAIDFrame, or whatever. > > > > This comes about for the same reason that you can't "mount -u" > > to turn Soft Updates from "off" t

Re: Vinum R5 [was: Re: background fsck deadlocks with ufs2 and big disk]

2003-02-24 Thread Darryl Okahata
Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think this is an expected problem with a lot of concatenation, > whether through Vinum, GEOM, RAIDFrame, or whatever. > > This comes about for the same reason that you can't "mount -u" > to turn Soft Updates from "off" to "on": Soft Updates does not >

Re: Vinum R5 [was: Re: background fsck deadlocks with ufs2 and big disk]

2003-02-21 Thread Terry Lambert
Vallo Kallaste wrote: > The crashes and anomalies with filesystem residing on R5 volume were > related to vinum(R5)/softupdates combo. The vinum R5 and system as > a whole were stable without softupdates. Only one problem remained > after disabling softupdates, while being online and user I/O going