From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 9 08:21:05 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C15F216A4CE; Thu, 9 Dec 2004 08:21:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pastinakel.tue.nl (pastinakel.tue.nl [131.155.2.7]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75CAB43D39; Thu, 9 Dec 2004 08:21:05 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from stijn@pcwin002.win.tue.nl) Received: by pastinakel.tue.nl (Postfix, from userid 40) id AABFD14BEE4; Thu, 9 Dec 2004 09:21:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from pcwin002.win.tue.nl (pcwin002.win.tue.nl [131.155.71.72]) by pastinakel.tue.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4801514BD33; Thu, 9 Dec 2004 09:21:03 +0100 (CET) Received: (from stijn@localhost) by pcwin002.win.tue.nl (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id iB98L20t065192; Thu, 9 Dec 2004 09:21:02 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from stijn) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 09:21:02 +0100 From: Stijn Hoop To: "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" Message-ID: <20041209082102.GC58675@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> Mail-Followup-To: Stijn Hoop , Greg 'groggy' Lehey , Scott Mitchell , orville weyrich , freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org References: <20041208054552.71553.qmail@web50708.mail.yahoo.com> <20041208100905.GA12684@tuatara.fishballoon.org> <20041208105255.GW39558@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> <20041209020656.GG92212@wantadilla.lemis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="TakKZr9L6Hm6aLOc" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041209020656.GG92212@wantadilla.lemis.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Bright-Idea: Let's abolish HTML mail! X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on pastinakel.tue.nl X-Spam-DCC: : X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=6.3 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.64 X-Spam-Level: cc: Scott Mitchell cc: orville weyrich cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Has anybody EVER successfully recovered VINUM? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 08:21:05 -0000 --TakKZr9L6Hm6aLOc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 12:36:56PM +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > On Wednesday, 8 December 2004 at 11:52:55 +0100, Stijn Hoop wrote: > > AFAIK the only way to guarantee a consistent rebuild is to do it > > offline (at least in 4.x, haven't tested gvinum in 5.x yet). > > > > > To play it safe you might want to unmount the volume before starting. > > > > I *have* to. >=20 > The issue is contention round where stripes are being written. The > code *should* avoid the contention, but it appears that there's a bug > there somewhere. I certainly agree with you that you should umount > the file system first. Well, it is a workaround but certainly acceptable to me. > There's no reason to believe that this problem exists in gvinum: I > believe the code has been completely rewritten. That is good to hear. I certainly have to further test gvinum RAID-5 in the near future. Now that setstate, checkparity & rebuildparity have been implemented there's not a technical reason not to, except for possible bugs. --Stijn --=20 "What kind of a two-bit operation are they running out of this treehouse, Cooper? I have seen some slipshod backwater burgs, but this place takes the cake." -- Special Agent Albert Rosenfield, "Twin Peaks" --TakKZr9L6Hm6aLOc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBuAruY3r/tLQmfWcRAocIAKCKyB7Dqwx7pTfrt0MwgBXSdYNbSACgnymB OvrWvhaeruC3WKQhbPcb6Dk= =VKod -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --TakKZr9L6Hm6aLOc--