Greg Oster <os...@cs.usask.ca> wrote: > It's probably easier to do by raidctl right now. I'm not opposed to > having RAIDframe grow a sysctl interface as well if folks think that > makes sense. The 'openings' value is currently set on a per-RAID basis, > so a sysctl would need to be able to handle individual RAID sets as > well as overall configuration parameters.
IMO raidctl makes more sense here, as it is the place where one is looking for RAID stuff. While I am there: fsck takes an infinite time while RAIDframe is rebuilding parity. I need to renice the raidctl process that does it in order to complete fsck. Would raising the outstanding write value also help here? -- Emmanuel Dreyfus http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz m...@netbsd.org
