From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 25 10:18:47 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 CDA5216A4CE for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:18:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from HOT-Bounce1.hot.ee (mail.neti.ee [194.126.101.114]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6075743D6E for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:18:46 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kalts@estpak.ee) Received: from MXR-2.estpak.ee (Relay2 [192.168.1.21]) by HOT-Bounce1.hot.ee (Postfix) with ESMTP id 543D87A6E1; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:18:45 +0200 (EET) Received: from kevad.internal (80-235-37-114-dsl.mus.estpak.ee [80.235.37.114]) by MXR-2.estpak.ee (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76352EC2FD; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:10:38 +0200 (EET) Received: by kevad.internal (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1E8251C8B4C; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:14:06 +0200 (EET) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:14:06 +0200 From: Vallo Kallaste To: Eirik =?utf-8?Q?=C3=98verby?= Message-ID: <20041125101405.GB7690@kevad.internal> References: <41A45A3F.5010008@anduin.net> <20041124171115.GP7232@darkness.comp.waw.pl> <6579E984-3E47-11D9-9576-000D9335BCEC@anduin.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <6579E984-3E47-11D9-9576-000D9335BCEC@anduin.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at neti.ee cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: graid3 - requirements or manpage wrong? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: kalts@estpak.ee List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:18:47 -0000 On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 07:33:55PM +0100, Eirik Øverby wrote: > OK I see, makes sense. So it's not really a raid3 issue, but an > implementation issue. > The only problem then is - gvinum being in a completely unusable state > (for raid5 anyway), what are my alternatives? I have four 160gb IDE > drives, and I want capacity+redundancy. Performance is a non-issue, > really. What do I do - in software? Submit code is the standard answer. Vinum and now gvinum (I have not tried the latter, your words) have never had reliable RAID-5 implementation. That is my experience only. Yes I am frustrated about current state of FreeBSD and because of such state I'm forced to use other OS's, for reliability reasons. For a person who's been with FreeBSD since 2.0.5 that's sad future, but nevertheless I'm unsubscribing from the remaining FreeBSD lists until things (hopefully) improve and to save you all from further rants. -- Vallo Kallaste