hysical read/write errors, you proably want to replace it
before doing the rebuild. )
Later...
Greg Oster
to
stop RAIDframe in its tracks... :(
(A fix for the issue is here:
http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/sbin/raidctl/rf_configure.c.diff?r1=1.19&r2=1.20
)
Otherwise what you have is just fine..
Later...
Greg Oster
t's hardware RAID it's automatically
better" lull you into a false sense of security understand the
features and benefits of both, do the analysis, and pick the one that
will work best for you.
Later...
Greg Oster
his 2TB hardware
RAID array are now all 'unassigned'!?!?!?!". That wasn't a fun day.)
Later...
Greg Oster
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Rob wrote:
>
> > On 9/25/07, Matt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I'm running a RAID1 mirror on OpenBSD 4.1 (webs
00' on my home desktop.. and slightly modified
versions of it on other home servers and other boxen I look after..
But don't blindly listen to me or anyone else -- learn what the risks
are for your situation, determine what level of risk you can accept,
and go from there...
Later...
Greg Oster
"Siju George" writes:
> On 3/8/07, Greg Oster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > Kernelized RAIDframe activated
> > > Searching for raid components...
> > > dkcsum: wd0 matches BIOS drive 0x80
> > > dkcsum: wd1 matches BIOS d
"Siju George" writes:
> On 3/8/07, Greg Oster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Siju George" writes:
> > > In my dmesg at one point it says
> > >
> > > ==
> > > Kernelized RAIDfram
"Siju George" writes:
> On 3/6/07, Greg Oster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Siju George" writes:
> >
> > It's working just fine... just probably telling you a bit more than
> > you really wanted to know :)
> >
> > Later...
&g
"Siju George" writes:
> On 3/6/07, Greg Oster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Siju George" writes:
> >
> > It's working just fine... just probably telling you a bit more than
> > you really wanted to know :)
> >
> > Later...
&g
from "Yes" to "No"). So it will always say "No" here, since that
will be the current value in the component labels.
> Which one should i beleive?
Both of them :) They are both correct for the time at which they are
examining the datapoint in question. That said, the line to really care
about is this one:
Parity status: clean
> Is the Raid not working properly?
It's working just fine... just probably telling you a bit more than
you really wanted to know :)
Later...
Greg Oster
s the only information you have to go on, and it's as good
as it's going to get. But it's been left the way it is so that one
can tell if the parity is "known good" or "known questionable"...
In any event, 'raidctl -P' isn't going to do anything useful until
you get wd3a (or its replacment) added back into the array
Later...
Greg Oster
wasn't just a user-land RAID driver. It wasn't just a kernel driver.
It was built with all three to allow rapid prototyping of new types
of RAID. Yes, there is some overhead to this, but it's not as large
as the code size might suggest... (e.g. compare the performance
difference between CCD vs RAID0..)
Later...
Greg Oster
disk too, but that's less likely)
Later...
Greg Oster
Josh Grosse writes:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 02:28:50PM -0600, Greg Oster wrote:
> > Josh Grosse writes:
> > > Has anyone using Root on RAID managed to point their dumpdev at a swap sp
> ace,
> > > either within a RAID array or on a standard swap partition?
>
suggested using
'swapctl -D /dev/wd0b', but I don't believe that'd work for you...
> Anyone with a successful swap/dump setup who might be able to point me to
> what I'm missing?
You should be able to do it, but not to swap on a RAID set...
Later...
Greg Oster
tell from that whether or not there is any 'live data' in
the portion that is unreadable if there isn't any live data,
then you can use 'dd' to make as much of a copy as possible of wd1,
and use that as the base for reconstructing the RAID set.)
Later...
Greg Oster
pecting :-} (most (all?) of those problems
have long since been cleaned up -- unfortunately not in the code base
that's in OpenBSD though :( )
Later...
Greg Oster
Walter Haidinger writes:
> First of all: Thanks for replying to an issue with a
> non-generic kernel! I really appreciate that!
That it was a non-generic kernel didn't even cross my mind... it was
an issue w/ RAIDframe, and that's why I responded...
> On Thu, 29 Jun 200
reconstructing. Skipping label.
> raidctl: ioctl (RAIDFRAME_GET_COMPONENT_LABEL) failed
Hmm.. where is the lines saying reconstruction is "n% complete"?
(they arn't pretty, but in this case they'd be useful)
> raidctl -F subsequently fails with "error rewriting parity".
Reconstruction is 100% complete.
> Parity Re-write is 100% complete.
> Copyback is 100% complete.
Try doing a:
raidctl -i 605190 raid0
here before rebooting. I seem to recall a bug related to component
labels on used spares not being updated properly after a reconstruct,
and I think re-running the '-i' option was the workaround...
Later...
Greg Oster
O: No space left on device
> disklabel: unable to write label
What does 'raidctl -s raid0' say? There are not may places in the
DIOCWDINFO code path where ENOSPC is returned... but one of them is
in raidstrategy().
Later...
Greg Oster
# Cyl 0 -15641
> 7*
435841403 + 1416925149 = 1852766552 which is greater than 160171392
by 1692595160. If you fix the offset of 'a', I suspect things will
be happier.
Later...
Greg Oster
em coming up... about an hour after it comes up, the disks
are then checked...
It's one of those "what are the odds" games... allowing the raidctl
to run in the background seems to have the right mix of paranoia and
practicality...
Later...
Greg Oster
Adam PAPAI writes:
> Greg Oster wrote:
> > Adam PAPAI writes:
> >
> >>After reboot my dmesg end:
> >>
> >>rootdev=0x400 rrootdev=0xd00 rawdev=0xd02
> >>Hosed component: /dev/sd0d.
> >>raid0: Ignoring /dev/sd0d.
> >>raid0: Compo
d raid0' to get
it to reconstruct back onto the failed component. After that you can
do a 'raidctl -iv' (though by that point it's strictly not necessary).
Later...
Greg Oster
Adam PAPAI writes:
> Greg Oster wrote:
> > Adam PAPAI writes:
> >
> >>Hello misc,
> >>
> >>I have an IBM xSeries 335 machine with Dual Xeon processor and 2x73GB
> >>SCSI Seagate Barracuda 10K rpm disc. I run OpenBSD 3.8 on it.
> >>
>
raid0: node (Rod) returned fail, rolling backward
> Unable to verify raid1 parity: can't read stripe.
> Could not verify parity.
Is this early in the initialization or late in the initialization?
Try doing:
dd if=/dev/rsd0d of=/dev/null bs=10m
and see if you get the same error message...
Later...
Greg Oster
Andy Hayward writes:
> On 2/1/06, Greg Oster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Peter Fraser" writes:
> > > and as a result all file writes to the failed
> > > drive queued up in memory,
> >
> > I've never seen that behaviour... I find
on using ccd :)
> Neither RAIDframe or ccd seems to be up the
> quality of nearly all the other software
> in OpenBSD. This statement is also true of the documentation.
My only comment on that is that the version of RAIDframe in OpenBSD
is somewhat dated. You are also encouraged to find and read the
latest versions of the documentation, and to provide feedback
to the author on what you feel is lacking.
Later...
Greg Oster
nnel, d) ancient things like HP-IB, and e) other RAIDframe
devices. If the underlying device can provide something that looks/
smells like a disk partition, that's good enough for RAIDframe.
Later...
Greg Oster
just removed the autoconfigure flag.
Please use the autoconfigure flag. It is *far* better at gluing
together a RAID set than the regular configuration bits, especially
in the face of drives that move about or drives that fail to spin
up... (the old config code needs to find its way into a bit-bucket..)
You really want to use the autoconfigure bits.. :) Really. :)
Later...
Greg Oster
nce it's an easy one for someone to fix... You
can file a problem report if you'd like, but I don't want to get
started filing PR's for RAIDframe stuff in OpenBSD -- there have been
a lot of changes/fixes to RAIDframe in the last 5 years that aren't
reflected in the code in OpenBSD, and I wouldn't know where to begin
:)
Later...
Greg Oster
n rf_openbsdkintf.c
case RAIDFRAME_GET_COMPONENT_LABEL:
there is a:
RF_Free( clabel, sizeof(RF_ComponentLabel_t));
missing before the:
return(EINVAL);
But that won't help with the problem your describing... (just noticed
the above as I was perusing the code..)
Later...
Greg Oster
Nick Holland writes:
> First of all, I've been informed who Greg Oster is...a/the maintainer of
> RAIDframe.
Guilty as charged.
> So, let's start by acknowledging his superior knowledge in
> the area (possibly a little bias, but his knowledge of this topic is to
Nick Holland writes:
> Greg Oster wrote:
> ...
> > Here's what I'd encourage you (or anyone else) to do:
>
> actually, I'd encourage you do try your own test. Results were interesting.
Well... as we see, you did *your* version of the test, not mine ;)
>
s preferred, but basically anything that will generate
a lot of IO here is what is needed).
3) After that's been going for a while, and while still in progress,
pull the power from the machine.
4) Fire the machine back up, configure the ccd again, and run fsck a
few times to make sure the ccd filesystem is "clean".
5) Now unconfigure the ccd.
6) Do an md5 checksum of each of the parts of the mirror, and see if
they differ. (they shouldn't, but I bet the do!!)
If they differ, tell me how ccd detected that difference, and how it
warned you that if the primary drive died that you'd have incorrect
data. If they don't differ, go buy a lottery ticket, cause it's
your lucky day! ;)
Later...
Greg Oster
w CCD Mirroring still exists in its current form, especially
without any warnings as to what it can do to your data and/or the
security/integrity of the system!
)
I'll go crawl back under my rock now, since apparently I'm taking data
integrity too seriously...
Thanks for reading this far.
Later...
Greg Oster
But that's just my $0.02, and yes, I'll admit to being biased towards
RAIDframe. At the same time, however, I don't want to see to see people
get badly burned by something that is advertised as a "solution" when
it really isn't (and when other real solutions do exist -- RAIDframe
only adds 150K to SomeOtherBSD's kernel these days).
Thanks for your time.
Later...
Greg Oster
38 matches
Mail list logo
