From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 31 00:22:25 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D379A16A4CE for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:22:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (trang.nuxi.com [66.93.134.19]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9917743D1D for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:22:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from obrien@dragon.nuxi.com) Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (obrien@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i0V8MIA0019152; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:22:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from obrien@dragon.nuxi.com) Received: (from obrien@localhost) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0V8MHeL019151; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:22:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from obrien) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:22:16 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" To: Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav Message-ID: <20040131082216.GG18624@dragon.nuxi.com> Mail-Followup-To: David O'Brien , Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav , Lanny Baron , Julian Elischer , FreeBSD current users References: <40119E16.1010802@FreeBSDsystems.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.2-CURRENT Organization: The NUXI BSD Group X-Pgp-Rsa-Fingerprint: B7 4D 3E E9 11 39 5F A3 90 76 5D 69 58 D9 98 7A X-Pgp-Rsa-Keyid: 1024/34F9F9D5 cc: Julian Elischer cc: Lanny Baron cc: FreeBSD current users Subject: Re: ata0-raid oddness. X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: obrien@FreeBSD.ORG List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 08:22:25 -0000 On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:27:07AM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: > Lanny Baron writes: > > That is correct. ad0 and ad1 are subdisks of respective ar* > > it is *not* correct - ad0 and ad1 should not be shown when they are > members of an active array, as any attempt to partition and label them > directly is likely to corrupt the array. older ATA didn't show the members of an active array. ATAng started showing them. :-( I asked sos about it and he said they'ed be exposed for a while until he finished some things he was working on. Maybe sos can update us on the state of things and the plans.