Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 18 Aug 2011 01:03:28 -0700
From:      perryh@pluto.rain.com
To:        utisoft@gmail.com, linimon@lonesome.com
Cc:        ports@freebsd.org, ben@freebsd.org, phk@phk.freebsd.dk, jhs@berklix.com
Subject:   Re: sysutils/diskcheckd needs fixing and a maintainer
Message-ID:  <4e4cc750.GqJImeHzdv6k8zld%perryh@pluto.rain.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110817161554.GA2496@lonesome.com>
References:  <CADLo83-kEaQyFOiR45WmYdOru8vqu-MhAgb9p=OhjOo-TVUwfQ@mail.gmail.com> <201108171436.p7HEaNYQ071778@fire.js.berklix.net> <20110817161554.GA2496@lonesome.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> wrote:

> We don't want to provide broken software.

Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> wrote:

> ... it's obsolete, broken, junk ...

Unless there is more to this than is reported in those two PRs,
I'd call it a considerable exaggeration to describe diskcheckd
as "broken".

* http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/115853
  is shown as "closed", so presumably is no longer a problem.

* http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/143566
  says "... diskcheckd runs fine when gmirror is not involved ..."
  and then goes on to describe a problem _when diskcheckd is run
  on a component of a gmirror_.

How anyone got from "in some way incompatible with gmirror" to
"broken" escapes me.  One could as well claim that gmirror is
"broken" because it is incompatible with diskcheckd >:->

I'm currently running diskcheckd on an 8.1 gmirrored system with
config file

  /dev/ad0 * * 8192

-- which should be using about 1/6 of that disk's bandwidth -- and
will see what happens when it reaches the end of the disk (sometime
tomorrow).  So far I have not seen any issues.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4e4cc750.GqJImeHzdv6k8zld%perryh>