From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 25 21:20:47 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 B6C0D16A4CE for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 21:20:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from deskaheh.nysindy.org (host-69-48-73-242.roc.choiceone.net [69.48.73.242]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C65C43D45 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 21:20:47 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ski@indymedia.org) Received: from 10.0.0.42 (unknown [10.0.0.254]) by deskaheh.nysindy.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F2B941A2B for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:20:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from 10.0.0.26 (SquirrelMail authenticated user ski); by wuhjuhbuh.afraid.org with HTTP; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:21:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4802.10.0.0.26.1101417679.squirrel@10.0.0.26> In-Reply-To: <41A5B95F.3060605@withagen.nl> References: <41A45A3F.5010008@anduin.net> <20041124171115.GP7232@darkness.comp.waw.pl> <6579E984-3E47-11D9-9576-000D9335BCEC@anduin.net> <20041125101405.GB7690@kevad.internal> <41A5B95F.3060605@withagen.nl> Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:21:19 -0500 (EST) From: "Brian Szymanski" To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.3a X-Mailer: SquirrelMail/1.4.3a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: graid3 - requirements or manpage wrong? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list 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 21:20:47 -0000 >>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? What's unusable about it? I've 4 250GB ATA drives, desiring capacity + redundancy, but don't care about speed, much like you, and gvinum raid 5 has suited me just fine this past few weeks. Eats a lot of system cpu when there is heavy IO to the R5, but I've booted up with a drive unplugged and it worked fine in degraded mode, so I'm content... > Vinum and now gvinum (I have not tried the latter, your words) have > never had reliable RAID-5 implementation. That is my experience only. ? This is the first I've heard of such problems? Vinum has served me well in the past, although I've never used Raid-5 before... If there are known bugs, I'd appreciate someone sending me a link to where I can read more. Cheers, Brian Szymanski ski@indymedia.org