On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 12:02:23PM +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -current, system did panic everytime at the end of > > initialisation of parity (raidctl -iv raid?). So I used the > > raidframe patch for -stable at > > http://people.freebsd.org/~scottl/rf/2001-08-28-RAIDframe-stable.diff.gz > > Had to do some patching by hand, but otherwise works well. > > I don't think that problems with RAIDFrame are related to these > problems with Vinum. I seem to remember a commit to the head branch > recently (in the last 12 months) relating to the problem you've seen. > I forget exactly where it went (it wasn't from me), and in cursory > searching I couldn't find it. It's possible that it hasn't been > MFC'd, which would explain your problem. If you have a 5.0 machine, > it would be interesting to see if you can reproduce it there. Yes, yes, the whole raidframe story was meant as information about the conditions I did the raidframe vs. Vinum testing on. Nothing to do with Vinum, besides that raidframe works and Vinum does not. > > Will it suffice to switch off power for one disk to simulate "more" > > real-world disk failure? Are there any hidden pitfalls for failing > > and restoring operation of non-hotswap disks? > > I don't think so. It was more thinking aloud than anything else. As > I said above, this is the way I tested things in the first place. Ok, I'll try to simulate the disk failure by switching off the power, then. Thanks -- Vallo Kallaste To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
