From owner-freebsd-fs Thu Feb 5 05:31:52 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA18552 for freebsd-fs-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 05:31:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from master.inter-linc.net ([12.10.101.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA18543 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 05:31:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from cdillon@inter-linc.net) Received: from cheetah.inter-linc.net (12.10.101.13) by master.inter-linc.net (Worldmail 1.3.167); 5 Feb 1998 07:30:34 -0600 Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.1 [p0] on FreeBSD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <199802041558.HAA04258@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 07:21:15 -0600 (CST) From: Chris Dillon To: (Satoshi Asami) Subject: Re: May have pounced on something weird with ccd and newfs (rat Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org X-To-Unsubscribe: mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" On 04-Feb-98 Satoshi Asami wrote: > > * > * I=128 newfs -b 8192 -f 1024 fails with "write error: 2047871 > * > * wtfs: invalid argument". > > * I'm not quite sure what you mean by "old" disklabel, but I started out >fresh > * with these drives, and labeled them symmetrically with using ccd's in >mind.. > >What I meant is if you edit the disklabel on a ccd at a certain >interleave, the label will "stick" when you later reconfigure the ccd >with a different interleave (since the disklabel exists in the first >sector of the first partition). Aaaah, so maybe the best thing for me to do would have been to throw some zeros to the front of the partitions I was going to use for the ccd before I configured it? Or would it have been enough to throw some zeros onto the ccd *after* i configured it? >Since the interleaves are increasing in your test order, it's possible >that the last few blocks that the disklabel says exist may not exist. Makes sense, now. > * Here's the labels for sd0, sd1, and ccd0, and the output of ccdconfig -g. > >You are missing the output of ccdconfig -g. I can't diagnose the >problem without it. Whoops. I won't paste the rest of it since its back in this thread somewhere. :-) root@cheetah [/root] # ccdconfig -g ccd0 64 0 /dev/sd0s1g /dev/sd1s1g ccd1 64 0 /dev/sd0s1h /dev/sd1s1h > * root@cheetah [/root] # disklabel ccd0 > > * sectors/unit: 2047872 > >See the number above (the error from wtfs). It is second from the >last block, which could be invalid at a 128 interleave. > * 3 partitions: > * # size offset fstype [fsize bsize bps/cpg] > * a: 1023936 0 4.2BSD 1024 8192 0 # (Cyl. 0 - >499*) > * b: 1023936 1023936 4.2BSD 1024 8192 0 # (Cyl. 499*- >999*) > * c: 2047872 0 unused 0 0 # (Cyl. 0 - >999*) > >So you do have a disklabel. (The ccd driver will return a "default" >label with only partition "c" and type "4.2BSD" if you don't write one >yourself...that is often good enough, there usually is no point in >sub-partitioning the ccd if you're combining disks is the first >place. :) When I did the testing, i didn't label the ccd, i let it use the 'c' partition. However, i am now using two ccd's, one is using 'c', the other is split with 'a' and 'b'. This was more or less a learning thing for me, since I had never set up any ccd's before, and I wanted to see what kind of performance enhancement I would get from it. --- Chris Dillon --- cdillon@inter-linc.net --- Powered by FreeBSD, the best operating system on the planet for Intel x86 based computers (and soon Sparcs). ---- (http://www.freebsd.org)