From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 11 19:47:48 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 00D3516A4CE; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 19:47:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mta11.adelphia.net (mta11.adelphia.net [68.168.78.205]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AF9143D1D; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 19:47:47 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from security@jim-liesl.org) Received: from smtp.jim-liesl.org ([68.71.52.28]) by mta11.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02 201-2131-111-104-20040324) with ESMTP id <20041111194746.EIRR19338.mta11.adelphia.net@smtp.jim-liesl.org>; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:47:46 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.jim-liesl.org [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.jim-liesl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38882152B6; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:47:45 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <4193C1FD.1060502@jim-liesl.org> Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:48:13 -0700 From: secmgr User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: msch@snafu.de, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, le@freebsd.org References: <02f201c4ba91$f9f95db0$33017f80@psique> <200411071042.03382.msch@snafu.de> <4192889E.8010506@jim-liesl.org> <200411112005.31694.msch@snafu.de> In-Reply-To: <200411112005.31694.msch@snafu.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: freebsd 5.3 have any problem with vinum ? 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, 11 Nov 2004 19:47:48 -0000 Matthias Schuendehuette wrote: >I'm not sure if this is a problem of (g)vinum or if FreeBSD has other >problems in this area. > > just logged a kern bug on this >And we all have to consider that gvinum is in a relatively early >development phase (IMHO) - it is basically working, that is, it's >possible to continue an existing 'classic' vinum installation with >gvinum but it's still not fully functional in all depth. > > (minor deletes) I guess my issue is that there should be something in the release notes/updating that says "gvinum raid5 is not fully funtional at this time". I would argue that if can't survive a disk failure, it's not really RAID5. You might as well just go stripe and at least get the disk space back. If I hadn't sat down and tested this, I wouldn't have known it was broke till I had a drive failure which is not a good time to find out. I like (in general) where this is heading, but we seem to be inbetween relieable s/w raid5 solutions in FreeBSD. jim