Re: SCSI, LUNs, and volume sizes - SOLVED

2007-03-19 Thread Steve Fairhead
daniele.pilenga wrote: >> First, those SCSIFORCELUN* options are no longer used in 4.0... this cost me a few days to figure out! :-\ << I did wonder about that; those options are missing from the manpage, but used to be there... >> All I was able to do was make my server see the first lun, but no

Re: SCSI, LUNs, and volume sizes

2007-03-19 Thread daniele . pilenga
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/18/2007 02:22:39 PM: > I'm running an OpenBSD 4.0 system (generic kernel), fitted with an Adaptec > 29160 SCSI card (so using the ahc driver), with the intention of running an > external 3Tb RAID5 array (a Nexsan ATAboy). The intention is to setup a > variety of par

Re: SCSI, LUNs, and volume sizes

2007-03-18 Thread Gordon Ross
I've been told by a storage vendor that Adaptec isn't totally reliable when it comes to large (>1TB) SCSI devices/partitions/luns. LSI cards are supposed to be a whole lot better. This is irrespective of any O/S limitations. GTG >>> Jacob Yocom-Piatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Steve Fairhead wrote:

Re: SCSI, LUNs, and volume sizes

2007-03-18 Thread Jacob Yocom-Piatt
Steve Fairhead wrote: > I'm running an OpenBSD 4.0 system (generic kernel), fitted with an Adaptec > 29160 SCSI card (so using the ahc driver), with the intention of running an > external 3Tb RAID5 array (a Nexsan ATAboy). The intention is to setup a > variety of partitions, the largest of which is