In article <20051123103729.GA927@duron.akihabara.co.uk>,
Neil Booth  <neil@daikokuya.co.uk> wrote:
>I have a failed experiment with raid 1 left on my wd0 disk.  Raidframe
>is not working reliably; I presume it is a driver issue; my machine
>frequently locks up.  Without RAID the system has historically been
>rock solid.  The instability was apparent in both 2.0.2 and current.
>
>I have left wd1 in failed state:
>
># raidctl -s -v raid0
>Components:
>           /dev/wd0a: optimal
>           /dev/wd1a: failed
>No spares.
>Component label for /dev/wd0a:
>   Row: 0, Column: 0, Num Rows: 1, Num Columns: 2
>   Version: 2, Serial Number: 2005102901, Mod Counter: 299
>   Clean: No, Status: 0
>   sectPerSU: 128, SUsPerPU: 1, SUsPerRU: 1
>   Queue size: 100, blocksize: 512, numBlocks: 156301312
>   RAID Level: 1
>   Autoconfig: Yes
>   Root partition: Yes
>   Last configured as: raid0
>/dev/wd1a status is: failed.  Skipping label.
>Parity status: DIRTY
>Reconstruction is 100% complete.
>Parity Re-write is 100% complete.
>Copyback is 100% complete.
>
>I hoped this would be enough to restore my system to stability,
>but alas it is not.  Doing an "svn up" in my GCC repository freezes
>the system after a few seconds.  (As I mentioned, before I played
>with raid my system never froze under NetBSD).  So I would like to
>turn off raid altogether, in the sense of having no raid kernel threads
>running at all.
>
>Questions:
>
>a) Will "raidctl -A no raid0" do that?  I'm concerned about rendering
>   my system unbootable doing this.  With auto-configure off, will
>   my system boot with my filesystems still on raid0a etc?  At
>   present raid0 is my boot device; raid0a is root.  The manual
>   page is not clear about exactly what the effects of the raid
>   device being auto-configured or not are.
>
>b) Will updating wd0's disklabel to point to the file systems currently
>   in raid0a-h so they become normal FFS filesystems for wd0-h work?  I
>   suspect the only change I would need would be to add the offset of
>   raid0 in wd0a to the offsets currently given for raid0a-h?  (this is
>   63).  Or is there some additional reserved area in raid0a that RAID
>   uses that would make it unusable as wd0a?
>
>c) Anything I need to be careful about?
>
>Help appreciated, thanks.  I give my two disklabels, fstab and dmesg
>below.
>
>Neil.

It seems that your second drive is busted. What happens if you physically
remove it from the machine and run only one one drive? Does it get stuck
too? I am using raidframe in all the machines I own that have data I would
not like to lose and never had a problem.

christos