From owner-freebsd-current Sat Mar 15 0:35: 8 2003 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 E0CEE37B401; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 00:35:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from MX3.estpak.ee (ld1.estpak.ee [194.126.101.98]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 171A543F3F; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 00:35:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kalts@estpak.ee) Received: from kevad.internal (80-235-40-113-dsl.mus.estpak.ee [80.235.40.113]) by MX3.estpak.ee (Postfix) with ESMTP id 692B08803E; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 10:35:02 +0200 (EET) Received: (from vallo@localhost) by kevad.internal (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h2F8Ytab001001; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 10:34:55 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from vallo) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 10:34:54 +0200 From: Vallo Kallaste To: "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" Cc: Darryl Okahata , current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Vinum R5 Message-ID: <20030315083454.GA935@kevad.internal> Reply-To: kalts@estpak.ee References: <20030220200317.GA5136@kevad.internal> <200302202228.OAA03775@mina.soco.agilent.com> <20030221080046.GA1103@kevad.internal> <20030227012959.GA89235@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20030227095302.GA1183@kevad.internal> <20030301184310.GA631@kevad.internal> <20030314024602.GL77236@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20030314080528.GA1174@kevad.internal> <20030315013223.GC90698@wantadilla.lemis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030315013223.GC90698@wantadilla.lemis.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i-ja.1 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 12:02:23PM +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > > -current, system did panic everytime at the end of > > initialisation of parity (raidctl -iv raid?). So I used the > > raidframe patch for -stable at > > http://people.freebsd.org/~scottl/rf/2001-08-28-RAIDframe-stable.diff.gz > > Had to do some patching by hand, but otherwise works well. > > I don't think that problems with RAIDFrame are related to these > problems with Vinum. I seem to remember a commit to the head branch > recently (in the last 12 months) relating to the problem you've seen. > I forget exactly where it went (it wasn't from me), and in cursory > searching I couldn't find it. It's possible that it hasn't been > MFC'd, which would explain your problem. If you have a 5.0 machine, > it would be interesting to see if you can reproduce it there. Yes, yes, the whole raidframe story was meant as information about the conditions I did the raidframe vs. Vinum testing on. Nothing to do with Vinum, besides that raidframe works and Vinum does not. > > Will it suffice to switch off power for one disk to simulate "more" > > real-world disk failure? Are there any hidden pitfalls for failing > > and restoring operation of non-hotswap disks? > > I don't think so. It was more thinking aloud than anything else. As > I said above, this is the way I tested things in the first place. Ok, I'll try to simulate the disk failure by switching off the power, then. Thanks -- Vallo Kallaste To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message