From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 13 18:28:25 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org 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 18F1916A41F; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:28:25 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ambrisko@ambrisko.com) Received: from mail.ambrisko.com (mail.ambrisko.com [64.174.51.43]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F8D543D49; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:28:24 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ambrisko@ambrisko.com) Received: from server2.ambrisko.com (HELO www.ambrisko.com) ([192.168.1.2]) by mail.ambrisko.com with ESMTP; 13 Jan 2006 10:28:24 -0800 Received: from ambrisko.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by www.ambrisko.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id k0DISOKN088454; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:28:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ambrisko@ambrisko.com) Received: (from ambrisko@localhost) by ambrisko.com (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id k0DISOoo088453; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:28:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ambrisko) From: Doug Ambrisko Message-Id: <200601131828.k0DISOoo088453@ambrisko.com> In-Reply-To: <200601131212.19465.jkim@FreeBSD.org> To: Jung-uk Kim Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:28:24 -0800 (PST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL94b (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Scott Mitchell , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org, Vivek Khera Subject: Re: 6.0 on Dell 1850 with PERC4e/DC RAID? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:28:25 -0000 Jung-uk Kim writes: | On Friday 13 January 2006 11:59 am, Doug Ambrisko wrote: | > Jung-uk Kim writes: | > | On Thursday 12 January 2006 07:41 pm, Doug Ambrisko wrote: | > | > Scott Mitchell writes: | > | > | > I did find a program | > | > | > posted to one of the freebsd lists called 'amrstat' that I | > | > | > run nightly. It produces this kind of output: | > | > | > | > | > | > Drive 0: 68.24 GB, RAID1 | > | > | > optimal | > | > | > | > | > | > If it says "degraded" it is time to fix a drive. You just | > | > | > fire up the lsi megaraid tools and find out which drive it | > | > | > is. | > | > | > | > This is probably a faily good scheme. Caveat is that you can | > | > have a "optimal" RAID that is broken :-( | > | | > | That's lame. Under what condition does it happen, do you know? | > | > Running RAID 10, a drive was swapped and the rebuild started on the | > replacement drive. The rebuild complained about the source drive | > for the mirror rebuild having read errors that couldn't be | > recovered. It continued on and finished re-creating the mirror. | > Then the RAID proceeeded onto a background init which they normal | > did and started failing that and re-starting the background init | > over and over again. The box changed the RAID from degraded to | > optimal when the rebuild completed (with errors). Do a dd of the | > entire RAID logical device returned an error at the bad sector | > since it couldn't recover that. The RAID controller reported an I/O | > error and still left the RAID as optimal. | > | > We reported this and where told that's the way it is designed :-( | > Probably the spec. is defined by whatever the RAID controller | > happens to do versus what make sense :-( | > | > So far this has only happened once. Changing firmware did not | > help. | | Similar thing happened to me once or twice (with RAID5) and I thought | it was just a broken controller. If the culprit was design, it IS | really lame. :-( I'd suggest whining to them. To me "optimal" means "as far as I know there are no problems with the RAID". If enough customers whine they might change their view! Doug A.