seebs@plethora.net writes:
> In message <Pine.NEB.4.03.9912031023350.19355-100000@poston2.wan.vpn>, poston
>  w
> rites:
> >I like RAIDframe a *lot*.  You can always just say no to soft updates.
> 
> Yeah, but soft updates are *awesome*.  I've got real-world usage that goes
> from 5 minutes to 15 seconds with soft updates.  (Refiling 10,000 MH
> messages.)

Just to confirm: Frank (fvdl) fixed a bug such that the softupdates stuff
now plays much nicer with RAIDframe.. but I can still (consistently) tickle 
a panic under high load (w/ softdeps + RAIDframe).  So for now, unfortunately,
the safest thing is to not use softdeps w/ RAIDframe :( 

> >I've built a very nice little RAID system for home (every home should
> >have one) using RAIDframe / NetBSD 1.4.1 / UDMA drives,  very good
> >performance ( 30 MB/sec read, 23 MB/sec write - 6 drives arranged
> >as a 4+1+1 RAID V, 25 GB usable, under $2K total ).  The only "trick"
> >was to arrange things so that each drive has it's own UDMA controller
> >(no slaves).  One of the best RAID systems (stability wise) I've run
> >across in 10 years of building/doing RAID (since the days of funding
> >the Berkeley RAID project!)

MMMmmmm RAIDframe :)  

> Not bad.  How stable is RAIDframe these days, modulo soft updates?

My main box, which has a RAIDframe RAID 5 set holding a heavily used 
filesystem, has been up for 50 days now... (50 days ago it was taken 
down to add a sound card).  If RAIDframe ever becomes unstable, 
I want to know about it...

Later...

Greg Oster