From owner-freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 8 01:58:14 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C91816A402 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 01:58:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lulf@stud.ntnu.no) Received: from signal.itea.ntnu.no (signal.itea.ntnu.no [129.241.190.231]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1775713C428 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 01:58:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lulf@stud.ntnu.no) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by signal.itea.ntnu.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFD9033654; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 02:58:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from twoflower.idi.ntnu.no (twoflower.idi.ntnu.no [129.241.104.169]) by signal.itea.ntnu.no (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 02:58:12 +0100 (CET) Received: by twoflower.idi.ntnu.no (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 9CB001700C; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 02:58:12 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 02:58:12 +0100 From: Ulf Lilleengen To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20070308015812.GA30713@twoflower.idi.ntnu.no> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org, le@FreeBSD.org, clayton@bitheaven.net References: <0B1A704D-A455-4741-BC11-A2019BFB4B22@bitheaven.net> <45EF18C3.3070106@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45EF18C3.3070106@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Content-Scanned: with sophos and spamassassin at mailgw.ntnu.no. Cc: clayton@bitheaven.net, le@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Problems simulating gvinum raid5 rebuild X-BeenThere: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: GEOM-specific discussions and implementations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 01:58:14 -0000 On ons, mar 07, 2007 at 08:55:47pm +0100, Lukas Ertl wrote: > Clayton F wrote: > > >Any suggestions? Is using 7 drives exceeding the number that gvinum > >raid5 will allow? Should I be labeling the drives differently? Is my > >method for simulating a drive failure/replacement flawed? Any help would > >be most appreciated! > > It's apparently a bug. I'm currently working on some improvements to > geom_vinum, and this will be addressed, too. This mess is because when reading the gvinum configuration on boot-time, none of the objects is actually bound together and registered within another when the drive_taste is run (The parser just creates the object. It does not bind anything together). The states is also not updated. I've already done some work on this, but I discovered more issues that need to be fixed. I'll try have a patch ready by tomorrow night. I also have several other fixes in the lulf_gvinum_bugs branch in p4 Lukas. -- Ulf Lilleengen