From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 13 21:25:12 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0659216A4CE for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2004 21:25:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from outbound0.sv.meer.net (outbound0.sv.meer.net [205.217.152.13]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE04243D49 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2004 21:25:11 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jrhett@mail.meer.net) Received: from mail.meer.net (mail.meer.net [209.157.152.14]) iBDLP4wN029104; Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:25:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jrhett@mail.meer.net) Received: from mail.meer.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.meer.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/meer) with ESMTP id iBDLOoFL043871; Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:24:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jrhett@mail.meer.net) Received: (from jrhett@localhost) by mail.meer.net (8.12.1/8.12.10) id iBDLOmb3043862; Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:24:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jrhett) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:24:48 -0800 From: Joe Rhett To: Paul Mather Message-ID: <20041213212447.GC34080@meer.net> Mail-Followup-To: Paul Mather , Doug White , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=F8ren?= Schmidt References: <20041213052628.GB78120@meer.net> <20041213102333.V92964@carver.gumbysoft.com> <1102971786.7399.24.camel@zappa.Chelsea-Ct.Org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1102971786.7399.24.camel@zappa.Chelsea-Ct.Org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: Meer.net LLC cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=F8ren?= Schmidt Subject: Re: drive failure during rebuild causes page fault X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 21:25:12 -0000 On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 04:03:06PM -0500, Paul Mather wrote: > That's not quite fair. He was obviously testing to see how resilient > ATA RAID is to drive failures during rebuilding, as part of a series of > tests. (Obviously, it is not.) If you look at his original message, he > did not even "yank" the disk. He detached it in a somewhat orderly > fashion using "atacontrol detach." Actually, I did both and both caused the same page fault :-( -- Joe Rhett Senior Geek Meer.net