Subject: Re: Horrible RAIDFrame Crash
To: Caffeinate The World <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Greg Oster <email@example.com>
Date: 04/16/2003 16:54:57
Caffeinate The World writes:
> --- Greg Oster <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > Why is using 1023872? is the 128 reserved for the raid disk label?
> > 64 are reserved for the RAIDframe component label. The actual number
> > of
> > blocks used will be just a multiple of 128 (which 1023872 is.)
> Greg, reviewing all my previous emails...
> Does that mean I should offset 64 sectors at the begining of each raid
> disklabel? Or does RAIDframe reserve it elsewhere?
Sorry... could have been a bit clearer. The first 64 blocks of a component
are "reserved" for component labels, but not all of that space is used
for component labels. In particular, the first 32 blocks are left
completely untouched by RAIDframe. (so you you have other disklabels
and stuff, then you can start a RAIDframe component at block 0, and not
worry about RAIDframe stomping on your label). The current component label
is actually just a 512-byte block that happens to live at block 32.
> In my tests, I started the raid disklabel at 0 offset.