Re: A little story of failed raid5 (3ware 8000 series)

2007-08-25 Thread Tom Samplonius
- Artem Kuchin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... But i don't understand how and why it happened. ONly 6 hours ago (a night before) all those files were backed up fine w/o any read error. And now, right after replacing the driver and starting rebuild it said that there are bad sectors all

Re: A little story of failed raid5 (3ware 8000 series)

2007-08-25 Thread Tom Samplonius
- Martin Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That is what patrol read is intended to detect before it is a problem. In a RAID5 array the checksums are only used when reconstructing data, if you have a bad block in a checksum sector it will not be detected until a drive have failed and

RE: A little story of failed raid5 (3ware 8000 series)

2007-08-25 Thread David Schwartz
This isn't really accurate. First of all, if the RAID controller isn't confirming checksums before giving the data to the OS, what is the checksum for exactly? The checksum is used to recover the data in the event one piece of the data is lost. With all of the data but one piece, and

Re: powerd freeze with amd 5000 X2 but not with lower cpus

2007-08-25 Thread JoaoBR
On Thursday 23 August 2007 14:37:57 Ian Smith wrote: so now I did because of your question and it seems the power_profile script has a bug I tries to set hw.acpi.cpu.cx_lowest=C1 but I guess it should be dev.cpu.0.cx_lowest Ah, ok. Updated in HEAD but not STABLE:

Re: A little story of failed raid5 (3ware 8000 series)

2007-08-25 Thread Tom Judge
Tom Samplonius wrote: - Artem Kuchin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... But i don't understand how and why it happened. ONly 6 hours ago (a night before) all those files were backed up fine w/o any read error. And now, right after replacing the driver and starting rebuild it said that there are

Re: error - snmp_bridge (fwd)

2007-08-25 Thread Shteryana Shopova
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:12:44 -0300 From: Carlos Porto Filho [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: error - snmp_bridge During the make buildworld (6stable) i got this: Change begemotBridgeBaseName bridge_oid.h line 31: '(' expected at begin of node context:

Re: error - snmp_bridge

2007-08-25 Thread Carlos Porto Filho
Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Carlos Porto Filho wrote: Hi, During the make buildworld (6stable) i got this: Change begemotBridgeBaseName bridge_oid.h line 31: '(' expected at begin of node context: TruthValue ENUM ( *** Error code 1 Stop in

Re: error - snmp_bridge (solved)

2007-08-25 Thread Carlos Porto Filho
Shteryana Shopova wrote: Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:12:44 -0300 From: Carlos Porto Filho [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: error - snmp_bridge During the make buildworld (6stable) i got this: Change begemotBridgeBaseName bridge_oid.h line 31: '(' expected at begin of

Re: A little story of failed raid5 (3ware 8000 series)

2007-08-25 Thread Andrei Kolu
Friday 24 August 2007 23:04:37 kirjutas Matthew Dillon: A friend of mine once told me that the only worthwhile RAID systems are the ones that email you a detailed message when something goes south. -Matt

Re: MFC 7.0 calcru changes

2007-08-25 Thread Mike Jakubik
David O'Brien wrote: This is a patch to MFC what I think are all the calcru-related changes that occurred since 6-STABLE was branched and 7.0 continued forward. If anyone spots some changes I missed, please yell out. Thank you so much! My supermicro systems are plagued by calcru messages

Re: A little story of failed raid5 (3ware 8000 series)

2007-08-25 Thread Manjunath R Gowda
On 8/25/07, Tom Samplonius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Artem Kuchin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... But i don't understand how and why it happened. ONly 6 hours ago (a night before) all those files were backed up fine w/o any read error. And now, right after replacing the driver and

Re: A little story of failed raid5 (3ware 8000 series)

2007-08-25 Thread Tom Samplonius
- David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is supposed to be for detecting data corruption, so if the card isn't using the checksum, its kinda of useless. You are confused. Checking for data corruption is done, by checking if the *DATA* is corrupt. This does not require looking