t this point, I know
for a fact there's a rather large 500MB section free at the end of my hard
drives with this partition set up. Is there any reason I can't just install
as normal, do a 'gmirror label gm0 ada0', and then do a 'gmirror insert gm0
ada1', before changin
on this than I am, and I have followed many of his
instructions in the past.
With the shift towards GPT and away from the old DOS mbr/partition table stuff
of the past, the current Handbook pages reflect this. The central point of
contention arises from the fact that GPT, GEOM (gmirror), and ma
On Tue, 8 Oct 2013, Andy Zammy wrote:
# gpart show ada0s1
gpart: No such geom: ada0s1
By the way, this is after a restart of the machine.
There's nothing to back up, I'm installing a fresh os, so I just install on one
drive, plug the other in, and start following the handbook instructions for
On Tue, 8 Oct 2013, Andy Zammy wrote:
Thanks very much. Please could I make a suggestion that this be included in the
handbook page?
Please do not top-post, it makes replies more difficult.
I have added a warning about SUJ to the top of the gmirror section in
the Handbook
# gpart show ada0s1
gpart: No such geom: ada0s1
By the way, this is after a restart of the machine.
There's nothing to back up, I'm installing a fresh os, so I just install on
one drive, plug the other in, and start following the handbook instructions
for this method. So the only thing in loader.
On Tue, 8 Oct 2013, Andy Zammy wrote:
This is actually trickier than it first looked. First I got into single user
mode by supplying 'shutdown now', but the tunefs commands all failed with the
following:
#tunefs -j disable /dev/ada0s1a
Clearing journal flags from inode 4
tunefs: Failed to writ
I
On 8 October 2013 01:31, Warren Block wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Oct 2013, Andy Zammy wrote:
>
> Hi,
>>
>> I used the second section of the handbook (20.4) to create a gmirror. In
>> my
>> particular setup I had a 1GB /, 6GB swap, 1GB /tmp and the rest of the 1TB
&
8 Oct 2013, Andy Zammy wrote:
>
> Hi,
>>
>> I used the second section of the handbook (20.4) to create a gmirror. In
>> my
>> particular setup I had a 1GB /, 6GB swap, 1GB /tmp and the rest of the 1TB
>> drive was left for /usr
>>
>> I had to
Thanks very much. Please could I make a suggestion that this be included in
the handbook page?
On 8 Oct 2013 01:31, "Warren Block" wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Oct 2013, Andy Zammy wrote:
>
> Hi,
>>
>> I used the second section of the handbook (20.4) to create a gmirror.
On Tue, 8 Oct 2013, Andy Zammy wrote:
Hi,
I used the second section of the handbook (20.4) to create a gmirror. In my
particular setup I had a 1GB /, 6GB swap, 1GB /tmp and the rest of the 1TB
drive was left for /usr
I had to deviate from the handbook when it came to running the dump
Hi,
I used the second section of the handbook (20.4) to create a gmirror. In my
particular setup I had a 1GB /, 6GB swap, 1GB /tmp and the rest of the 1TB
drive was left for /usr
I had to deviate from the handbook when it came to running the dump +
restore commands, as the dump failed due to an
On 21/07/2013 17:31, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 14:13:39 +0930
Shane Ambler wrote:
On 21/07/2013 04:42, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
It's a pity there are now only two manufacturers of spinning rust.
I thought there was three left - Seagate WD and Toshiba
I assumed
But then zfs doesn't access every block on the disk does it, only the
allocated ones
On 20 July 2013 21:07, Daniel Feenberg wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 20 Jul 2013, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
>
> On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 18:14:20 +0100
>> Frank Leonhardt wrote:
>>
>> It's worth noting, as a warning for a
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 00:27:01 -0700
per...@pluto.rain.com (Perry Hutchison) wrote:
> "Steve O'Hara-Smith" wrote:
>
> > It's a pity there are now only two manufacturers of spinning rust.
>
> I didn't think there were _any_! Haven't oxide-coated platters gone
> the way of the dodo bird?
"Steve O'Hara-Smith" wrote:
> It's a pity there are now only two manufacturers of spinning rust.
I didn't think there were _any_! Haven't oxide-coated platters gone
the way of the dodo bird?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 14:13:39 +0930
Shane Ambler wrote:
> On 21/07/2013 04:42, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
> > It's a pity there are now only two manufacturers of spinning rust.
> >
> I thought there was three left - Seagate WD and Toshiba
I assumed Toshiba were out of the game, I've never
On 21/07/2013 04:42, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
It's a pity there are now only two manufacturers of spinning rust.
I thought there was three left - Seagate WD and Toshiba
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 18:14:20 +0100
Frank Leonhardt wrote:
It's worth noting, as a warning for anyone who hasn't been there, that
the number of times a second drive in a RAID system fails during a
rebuild is higher than would be expected. During
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 18:14:20 +0100
Frank Leonhardt wrote:
> It's worth noting, as a warning for anyone who hasn't been there, that
> the number of times a second drive in a RAID system fails during a
> rebuild is higher than would be expected. During a rebuild the remaining
> drives get thrash
to needing to explicitly physically swap out a failed mirror
component,
in which case one can make sure the system is OK before the replacement drive
goes in.
Agreed. Blaming gmirror for this kind of thing overlooks the overall
design and operating procedures of the system, and assuming ZFS would
ha
12GB SSDs for this purpose (which I haven't bought yet).
>>
>> But I tire of buying stuff, so I have a pair of 40GB Intel SSDs for use as
>> sys disks and several Intel 160GB SSDs lying around that I can combine with
>> the existing 256GB SSDs for a cache.
>>
&
>>>
>>> On Jul 16, 2013, at 10:33 AM, Johan Hendriks >> javascript:;>>
>>> wrote:
>>> [ ... ]
>>>
>>>> I would us a zfs for the os.
>>>> I have a couple of servers that did not survive a power failure with
>>>>
>> On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, aurfalien wrote:
>>>
>>> ... thats the question :)
>>>>
>>>> At any rate, I'm building a rather large 100+TB NAS using ZFS.
>>>>
>>>> However for my OS, should I also ZFS or simply gmirror as I'
ith
gmirror.
The problems i had was when the power failed one disk was in a rebuilding
state and then when the background fsck started or was busy for some time
it would crash the whole server.
Well, "don't do that". :-)
When the server reboots because of a powerfailure at night, then
Hi--
On Jul 16, 2013, at 11:27 AM, Johan Hendriks wrote:
>> Well, "don't do that". :-)
>
> When the server reboots because of a powerfailure at night, then it boots.
> Then it starts to rebuild the mirror on its own, and later the fsck kicks in.
>
> Not much i can do about it.
>
> Maybe i sho
Hi--
On Jul 16, 2013, at 10:33 AM, Johan Hendriks wrote:
[ ... ]
> I would us a zfs for the os.
> I have a couple of servers that did not survive a power failure with
> gmirror.
> The problems i had was when the power failed one disk was in a rebuilding
> state and then when the
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013, aurfalien wrote:
On Jul 16, 2013, at 2:41 AM, Shane Ambler wrote:
I doubt that you would save any ram having the os on a non-zfs drive as
you will already be using zfs chances are that non-zfs drives would only
increase ram usage by adding a second cache. zfs uses it's own
Op dinsdag 16 juli 2013 schreef Charles Swiger (cswi...@mac.com) het
volgende:
> Hi--
>
> On Jul 16, 2013, at 10:33 AM, Johan Hendriks
> >
> wrote:
> [ ... ]
> > I would us a zfs for the os.
> > I have a couple of servers that did not survive a power failure wit
>>>> At any rate, I'm building a rather large 100+TB NAS using ZFS.
>>>>
>>>> However for my OS, should I also ZFS or simply gmirror as I've a
>>>> dedicated pair of 256GB SSD drives for it. I didn't ask for SSD
>>>> sys d
on, 15 Jul 2013, aurfalien wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ... thats the question :)
>>>>>
>>>>> At any rate, I'm building a rather large 100+TB NAS using ZFS.
>>>>>
>>>>> However for my OS, should I also ZFS or si
also ZFS or simply gmirror as I've a
dedicated pair of 256GB SSD drives for it. I didn't ask for SSD
sys drives, this system just came with em.
This is more of a best practices q.
ZFS has data integrity checking, gmirror has low RAM overhead.
gmirror is, at present, restricted to M
On 16/07/2013 14:41, aurfalien wrote:
On Jul 15, 2013, at 9:23 PM, Warren Block wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, aurfalien wrote:
... thats the question :)
At any rate, I'm building a rather large 100+TB NAS using ZFS.
However for my OS, should I also ZFS or simply gmirror as I've a
On Jul 15, 2013, at 9:23 PM, Warren Block wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, aurfalien wrote:
>
>> ... thats the question :)
>>
>> At any rate, I'm building a rather large 100+TB NAS using ZFS.
>>
>> However for my OS, should I also ZFS or simply gmirror
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, aurfalien wrote:
... thats the question :)
At any rate, I'm building a rather large 100+TB NAS using ZFS.
However for my OS, should I also ZFS or simply gmirror as I've a dedicated pair
of 256GB SSD drives for it. I didn't ask for SSD sys drives, this sy
... thats the question :)
At any rate, I'm building a rather large 100+TB NAS using ZFS.
However for my OS, should I also ZFS or simply gmirror as I've a dedicated pair
of 256GB SSD drives for it. I didn't ask for SSD sys drives, this system just
came with em.
This is
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Nikola Pavlović wrote:
> About AHCI, it didn't attach after setting ahci_load="YES" in
> loader.conf so I assumed it wasn't enabled in BIOS. As I don't have
> physical access to the machine I asked the support to enable it, and
> presumably they did (that's what
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:36:59AM +0200, Nikola Pavlović wrote:
> I'm still a bit reluctant to run the ports tree update again, but I'll
> ask on -ports@ for further assistance with that.
>
Actually, no need. I retried it and it worked without any problem.
--
"Fantasies are free."
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:06:45AM -0700, Charles Swiger wrote:
> Hi--
>
> On Jun 27, 2013, at 9:58 AM, Adam Vande More wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Charles Swiger wrote:
> >> If you haven't rebuilt the mirror already, running a full disk read scan
> >> against both drives (ie, v
eventually disconnected. I decided
> > to leave it during the night, and, sure enough, the situation was the
> > same in the morning, so I had to do a hard reset. It came back up, but
> > one of the two gmirror components was marked as broken and deactivated.
> >
> &g
Hi--
On Jun 27, 2013, at 9:58 AM, Adam Vande More wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Charles Swiger wrote:
>> If you haven't rebuilt the mirror already, running a full disk read scan
>> against both drives (ie, via "dd if=/dev/ad4 of=/dev/null bs=1m" or similar)
>> might be prudent. Tha
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Charles Swiger wrote:
> If you haven't rebuilt the mirror already, running a full disk read scan
> against both drives (ie, via "dd if=/dev/ad4 of=/dev/null bs=1m" or
> similar)
> might be prudent. That will help identify/migrate any sectors which are
> failing
Hi--
On Jun 26, 2013, at 7:38 PM, Nikola Pavlović wrote:
[ ... ]
> At the moment I'm attaching smartctl -a results for both disks (ad4 was
> marked broken). As I'm completely useless in deciphering smartctl
> results (apart from being thought by experience to pretty much
> ignore(tm) the 'Pre-fa
was the
> same in the morning, so I had to do a hard reset. It came back up, but
> one of the two gmirror components was marked as broken and deactivated.
>
> The hang happened during the 'fetching new files or ports' (~24000 of
> them, there are currently ~1 snapshots
gmirror components was marked as broken and deactivated.
The hang happened during the 'fetching new files or ports' (~24000 of
them, there are currently ~1 snapshots in /var/db/portsnap) phase
of postsnap fetch.
/var/log/messages was completely silent during the period between th
On 2012-10-29 03:58, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> If you're truly using 4096-byte sectors disks -- specifically MECHANICAL
> hard disks (MHDDs) -- use of 4KByte alignment is fine.
>
> But if you ever plan on using an SSD the future, you need to align
> things to 1MBytes or 2MBytes.
>
> This is why
126+16777218, which is also evenly
> divisible by 8.
>
> So yes, that looks aligned to me.
Thanks again Warren!
I think I finally have this 9.1 system up and running with MBR and gmirror
aligned to 4K sector size.
After getting the gm0 running, I did a dump/restore to transfer the
(I won't be responding to any public or private mails relating to this
topic after this point, just as an FYI)
Just a reminder for readers:
If you're truly using 4096-byte sectors disks -- specifically MECHANICAL
hard disks (MHDDs) -- use of 4KByte alignment is fine.
But if you ever plan on usi
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012, free...@johnea.net wrote:
I ended up just ignoring the not aligned warning from the "gpart add -t freebsd" and went
on to add the freebsd-swap and freebsd-ufs partitions with "-a 4k" option.
Do you think I'm aligned?
...
=>63 3907029104 mirror/gm0 MBR (1.8T)
On 2012-10-27 14:41, Warren Block wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012, free...@johnea.net wrote:
>
>> On 2012-10-23 17:46, Warren Block wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, free...@johnea.net wrote:
>> orsbackup# gpart add -t freebsd -a 4k mirror/gm0
>> mirror/gm0s1 added, but partition is not aligned on 409
he freebsd partition fill the rest
of the disk, however as I try to destroy previous non-aligned MBR and gmirror
metadata, I'm running into issues:
"mirror/gm0s1 added, but partition is not aligned on 4096 bytes"
Below is a short screen shot of the commands used to destroy and th
g to create swap first at 8G, and let the freebsd partition fill the rest
of the disk, however as I try to destroy previous non-aligned MBR and gmirror
metadata, I'm running into issues:
"mirror/gm0s1 added, but partition is not aligned on 4096 bytes"
Below is a short screen sho
cussion where this issue is described ?
>>>
>>> The GPT backup partition tables goes at the end of a disk, the same
>>> place gmirror(8) and other GEOM modules keep metadata. If GPT
>>> partitions are created inside a mirror, the backup GPT table is no
&
on of
>>>> creating a full disk geom mirror while also using GPT partition table?
>>>
>>> I'm curious about what this is about. Could you refer me to an article
>>> or a discussion where this issue is described ?
>>
>> The GPT backup partitio
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, free...@johnea.net wrote:
In recent years I've just been creating a swap partition and one big root
partition. It just seems as soon as I make all the traditional partitions, one
runs out of room.
Do you feel there are any major disadvantages of this approach?
Backup of
>> Just wondering if 9.1 will bring any improvement to the situation of
>>>>> creating a full disk geom mirror while also using GPT partition table?
>>>>
>>> At present, MBR partitioning is recommended with gmirror(8).
>>
>> I've been r
also using GPT partition table?
I'm curious about what this is about. Could you refer me to an article
or a discussion where this issue is described ?
The GPT backup partition tables goes at the end of a disk, the same
place gmirror(8) and other GEOM modules keep metadata. If GPT
partition
rious about what this is about. Could you refer me to an article
or a discussion where this issue is described ?
The GPT backup partition tables goes at the end of a disk, the same
place gmirror(8) and other GEOM modules keep metadata. If GPT
partitions are created inside a mirror, the backup GPT tab
rious about what this is about. Could you refer me to an article
or a discussion where this issue is described ?
The GPT backup partition tables goes at the end of a disk, the same
place gmirror(8) and other GEOM modules keep metadata. If GPT
partitions are created inside a mirror, the backup GPT tab
me to an article
or a discussion where this issue is described ?
The GPT backup partition tables goes at the end of a disk, the same
place gmirror(8) and other GEOM modules keep metadata. If GPT
partitions are created inside a mirror, the backup GPT table is no
longer at the end of the disk. H
Hi,
On 2012.10.20 20:17, free...@johnea.net wrote:
> Just wondering if 9.1 will bring any improvement to the situation of creating
> a full disk geom mirror while also using GPT partition table?
I'm curious about what this is about. Could you refer me to an article
or a discussion where this iss
Hello,
Just wondering if 9.1 will bring any improvement to the situation of creating a
full disk geom mirror while also using GPT partition table?
Is the fix for this a near term thing, or something in the farther future?
Thanks for any insight!
johnea
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Robert Fitzpatrick wrote:
Just looking for some advice, I had a server lock up that uses gmirror
for two RAID-1 arrays of the primary drive and a data drive. The data
drive was reported as degraded after a reset of the server, but is
rebuilding. It is comprised of two TB
Just looking for some advice, I had a server lock up that uses gmirror
for two RAID-1 arrays of the primary drive and a data drive. The data
drive was reported as degraded after a reset of the server, but is
rebuilding. It is comprised of two TB drives with one reporting ACTIVE
with no flags. The
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Michael Ross wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the manpage says for ``gmirror label'':
>
> The order of components is important,
> because a component's priority is based on its position
> (starting from 0 to 255).
>
Hi,
the manpage says for ``gmirror label'':
The order of components is important,
because a component's priority is based on its position
(starting from 0 to 255).
so I would expect to have different priorities for the components,
yet both are listed wit
Hello,
>
> I wondered if there is a way to gmirroring the whole disk (not slices
> separately) when using GPT?
>
> GPT puts its metadata at the end of the disk, and when I start to use
> gmirror it overwrites the GPT metadata (... as gmirror puts also its
> metadata at the end
Hello,
I wondered if there is a way to gmirroring the whole disk (not slices
separately) when using GPT?
GPT puts its metadata at the end of the disk, and when I start to use
gmirror it overwrites the GPT metadata (... as gmirror puts also its
metadata at the end of the disk ...).
I
tp://blather.michaelwlucas.com/archives/1071
>
> meant that you have to be in single user mode until you have edited
> /etc/fstab to point to the mirror, otherwise you wouldn't boot with
> root on the mirror. The synchronization between the disks works fine
> in multi-user mode as w
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 07:02:29 -0800
per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
> Janos Dohanics wrote:
>
> > 1. The Guided partitioning doesn't suggest any more to
> > create /var, /tmp, /usr, etc. file systems. Is it really
> > the recommendation to go with just / ?
>
> Depends on who you ask :) and on your
/fstab to point to the mirror, otherwise you wouldn't boot with root
on the mirror. The synchronization between the disks works fine in
multi-user mode as well.
I have two 2 TiB disks in gmirror set up just like that. Synchronization
was done running in multi-user.
--
http://hack.org/mc/
War
nstall to install FreeBSD 9?
Not using the standard distribution IIUC. You might want to look
at http://druidbsd.sf.net/
> 3. It seems that setting up gmirror is more involved with GPT
> (http://blather.michaelwlucas.com/archives/1071); now I have a
> mirror for each of the filesystems /, /
Auto result to get it to work?
Gary
On 2/8/2012 12:00 PM, Bas Smeelen wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:42:59 -0500
Janos Dohanics wrote:
Hello Everyone,
May be I should have searched more for answers, but after installing
FreeBSD 9 with gmirror, I am wondering if the experts here have
> 3. Assuming one has enough RAM, is zfs mirror or raidz recommended over
> gmirror?
zfs mirror but I would not recommend a raidz root on zfs.
--
George Kontostanos
Aicom telecoms ltd
http://www.aisecure.net
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org m
On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:42:59 -0500
Janos Dohanics wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> May be I should have searched more for answers, but after installing
> FreeBSD 9 with gmirror, I am wondering if the experts here have some
> recommendations for "best practices".
>
Hello Everyone,
May be I should have searched more for answers, but after installing
FreeBSD 9 with gmirror, I am wondering if the experts here have some
recommendations for "best practices".
1. The Guided partitioning doesn't suggest any more to
create /var, /tmp, /usr, etc. file
> > I'm trying to upgrade a brand new server from 8.2 to 9.0 via source. I've
> > done this upgrade twice so far, once on a vmware test system, and once on a
> > Sun X4100m2, both with success.
> >
> > On this system, which is a Supermicro motherboard, I
I'm trying to upgrade a brand new server from 8.2 to 9.0 via source. I've done
this upgrade twice so far, once on a vmware test system, and once on a Sun
X4100m2, both with success.
On this system, which is a Supermicro motherboard, I have gmirror boot disk.
The other two did not
On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 11:55:50 +1030
William Brown wrote:
> >
> > I am trying to add a second gmirror, gm1:
> >
> > # sysctl kern.geom.debugflags=16
> > kern.geom.debugflags: 16 -> 16
> >
> > # gmirror label -v -b round-robin gm1 /dev/ad4
&g
Hello Everyone,
I have system with gmirror gm0:
# gmirror list
Geom name: gm0
State: COMPLETE
Components: 2
Balance: round-robin
Slice: 4096
Flags: NONE
GenID: 0
SyncID: 1
ID: 3516398316
Providers:
1. Name: mirror/gm0
Mediasize: 320072932864 (298G)
Sectorsize: 512
Mode: r5w5e14
I had a drive which had some timeout problems, and got kicked out of a
gmirror based RAID1 on my FreeBSD machine (now 8.2-RELEASE-p3).
Normally, if the devices get out of sync, they rebuild relatively
quickly, and I can watch the progress.
This time, after running gmirror forget and inserting the
Notes on a gmirrored partitions setup written into a draft
article:
http://www.wonkity.com/~wblock/docs/html/gmirror.html
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send an
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011, Johan Hendriks wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Warren Block wrote:
So it's cosmetic, but not really the kind of message that instills
confidence. gptboot needs to be able to tell if it's reading from a
gmirror. Or gmirror should provide one block le
>On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Warren Block wrote:
> So it's cosmetic, but not really the kind of message that instills
> confidence. gptboot needs to be able to tell if it's reading from a
> gmirror. Or gmirror should provide one block less than it does, so it
>
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Warren Block wrote:
> So it's cosmetic, but not really the kind of message that instills
> confidence. gptboot needs to be able to tell if it's reading from a
> gmirror. Or gmirror should provide one block less than it does, so it
> doe
block of the device, or the last block of their area and provide
their total minus
one block; or it could be that gptboot is seeing the disk rather than the
gmirror device). Can it be fixed?
This is a long standing issue that still isn't fixed to the best of my
knowledge. The pr
k of their area and
> provide their total minus one block; or it could be that gptboot is seeing
> the disk rather than the gmirror device). Can it be fixed?
>
This is a long standing issue that still isn't fixed to the best of my
knowledge. The problem is with gmirror and GPT.
Trying to use labeled devices and filesystems where possible, and adding
gmirror into the mix. (This is with 8-STABLE, i386.)
glabel two disks "primary" and "secondary".
gmirror the two:
gmirror label -v -b round-robin data /dev/label/primary /dev/label/secondary
Use
Ireneusz Pluta wrote:
> Hello,
>
> when selecting SATA drives for gmirror, boot device, connected to an
> on-board controller, should I look for so-called "enterprise grade", or
> "raid edition" drives (like for instance
> http://www.wdc.com/en/products/pr
On 28/04/2011 23:13, Ireneusz Pluta wrote:
> when selecting SATA drives for gmirror, boot device, connected to an
> on-board controller, should I look for so-called "enterprise grade", or
> "raid edition" drives (like for instance
> http://www.wdc.com/en/products/p
Hello,
when selecting SATA drives for gmirror, boot device, connected to an on-board controller, should I
look for so-called "enterprise grade", or "raid edition" drives (like for instance
http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.aspx?id=40), or I should rather focus
Hi,
can I safely use GPTs within a GEOM_MIRROR?
I created a new mirror and then used gpart to create additinal
partitions. dmesg gives:
the secondary GPT header is not in the last LBA
As far as I read by now it seems safe to ignore that message but I want
to get sure.
Or are mirrored GPTs only
On 08/04/2011 16:43, Christopher Hilton wrote:
Should a normal user be able to successfully:
$ gmirror remove /dev/mirror/gm0 /dev/ad6
Or is this something that's just unlocked because I haven't mounted the drive
yet?
$ uname -a
FreeBSD deathstar.example.com 8.2-STABLE F
Should a normal user be able to successfully:
$ gmirror remove /dev/mirror/gm0 /dev/ad6
Or is this something that's just unlocked because I haven't mounted the drive
yet?
$ uname -a
FreeBSD deathstar.example.com 8.2-STABLE FreeBSD 8.2-STABLE #1: Wed Apr 6
13:09:37 EDT 201
Once upon a time, I partitioned two disks identically and then added
them to a mirror. It was good. Then I upgraded to 8.2-RELEASE and now
I can't boot. Well, I did a little recovery work and I am currently
booting without the gmirror so I am satisfied that my data is safe.
Having r
n't been loaded yet gm0 doesn't exist and ad0s2a
is just a partition that happens to start with a bsdlabel and end
with gmirror metadata.
I could understand if bsdlabel tasted ad0s2a, found the label, and
(recursively) instantiated ad0s2aa, ad0s2ad, and ad0s2ae; but that
doesn't s
guity here is that the
bsdlabel is stored at the beginning of the disk, and is very loose about
what it accepts as valid, since there is no direct harm in being eager.
The metadata for gmirror is stored at the end. The metadata for the
bsdlabel is stored at the beginning. When bsdlabel tastes befor
, I'd think that geom_journal
> > "should not" be able to find its metadata at all).
>
> From what I've found, this is because there is no taste difference
> between a bsdlabel on a gmirror and a bsdlabel on a non-mirror.
... which seems like a bug, unless I m
;> output from kldstat, after booting the newly-installed system --
> >>> and manually mounting the root FS -- showing that geom_mirror.ko
> >>> did get loaded.
> >>> Id Refs AddressSize Name
> >>> 16 0xc040 bb5504 k
d manually mounting the root FS -- showing that geom_mirror.ko
>>> did get loaded.
>>> Id Refs AddressSize Name
>>> 16 0xc040 bb5504 kernel
>>> 21 0xc0fb6000 14540geom_journal.ko
>>> 31 0xc0fcb000 16ed4geom_mirror
gt; > Id Refs AddressSize Name
> > 16 0xc040 bb5504 kernel
> > 21 0xc0fb6000 14540geom_journal.ko
> > 31 0xc0fcb000 16ed4geom_mirror.ko
...
> sounds silly but are you loading the gmirror kernel module via
> loader.conf
Yes, I'm eve
1 - 100 of 632 matches
Mail list logo
