From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 29 14:37:53 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6364216A40F for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:37:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from root@prometheus.powertrip.co.za) Received: from prometheus.powertrip.co.za (prometheus.powertrip.co.za [72.21.46.202]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03C6E43D49 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:37:53 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from root@prometheus.powertrip.co.za) Received: from root by prometheus.powertrip.co.za with local (Exim 4.61 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1GTJUr-000OQr-Mq; Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:37:49 +0200 Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:37:49 +0200 From: Jacques Marneweck To: Andrew Reilly Message-ID: <20060929143749.GO64985@prometheus.powertrip.co.za> References: <20060929015352.GA46546@duncan.reilly.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060929015352.GA46546@duncan.reilly.home> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Doesn't *anyone* (else) use an atacontrol-built software RAID1 (mirror)? X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:37:53 -0000 On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 11:53:52AM +1000, Andrew Reilly wrote: > Hi, Hi, I normally would reinstall a machine from scratch rather than having a mission to upgrade from one major release to another major release. Also the software pseudo raid behaves quite well from my usage of it in production environments. Regards --jm > > I've posted this sort of question to freebsd-questions and > freebsd-stable, back on the 22nd, when I first noticed a > problem. Much to my surprise, I've not received any answer at > all, which makes me wonder if, perhaps, I'm the only one > actually using this sort of configuration. If that's the case, > then I'll happily drop it like a hot rock and try again with a > GEOM mirror, or something like that. > > Here's the story: > > I just (a week ago) tried to do an in-place upgrade from > RELENG_5 to RELENG_6 on a system that was running an ataraid > (built with atacontrol) mirror on a pair of SATA disks. The > root file system (256M) mounted fine, but fsck -p fails (unable > to find a superblock, from memory) under the new kernel on my > /usr partition, which is about 73G (most of the 80G of the > disks). Falling back to the RELENG_5 /boot/kernel and fsck > finds no problem with that filesystem. > > Is there a known behaviour change in ataraid behaviour between > the two versions? The hardware is Intel P4, ICH6 SATA150, and a > pair of Seagate 80G SATA drives. I can dig up more details if > necessary. Full dmesg and config file details are included in > the message to freebsd-questions on the 22nd, entitled > "ataraid/fsck glitch on upgrade from 5.5 to 6-stable?" > > One odd-looking thing that I noticed (in RELENG_5, of > course) is that fdisk ar0 says that cylinders=9729 heads=255 > sectors/track=63, but fdisk ad4 (the first of the "real" SATA > disks) says cylinders=155061, heads=16, sectors/track=63. > Should these really be so different? I haven't tested it, but > wouldn't this geometry difference make recovery with one dead > drive kind of awkward? > > Is backup and start again from label/newfs (perhaps using > gmirror instead of atacontrol?) my only option? > > Cheers, > > -- > Andrew > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"