On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 07:15:25PM +0100, Patrick Welche wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 12:04:24PM -0600, Greg Oster wrote:
> > > This gives me:
> > > 
> > > raidlookup on device: absent failed!
> > > RAIDFRAME: failed rf_ConfigureDisks with 2
> > > raidlookup on device: absent failed!
> > > RAIDFRAME: failed rf_ConfigureDisks with 2
> > > # raidctl -s raid0
> > > raidctl: ioctl (RAIDFRAME_GET_INFO) failed: Device not configured
> > > # raidctl -c /etc/raid0.conf raid0
> > > raidctl: ioctl (RAIDFRAME_CONFIGURE) failed: No such file or directory
> > > 
> > > > I don't recall if '-c' works with this, 
> > > > or whether you'll have to use '-C' to force it to configure.  In 
> > > > either case, you'll want to make absolutely sure that the component 
> > > > wd2a above is in the 2nd component position, regardless of whether 
> > > > it's called 'wd2a' or something else.
> > > 
> > > I'll try -C now.. wd2 was hardcoded, so it shouldn't have moved, should it?
> > 
> > Correct.  Since the disks are hard-coded, -C should work.
> 
> Hmm :/
> 
> # raidctl -C /etc/raid0.conf raid0
> raidctl: ioctl (RAIDFRAME_CONFIGURE) failed: No such file or directory
> 
> At the moment I don't have anything plugged in as wd1, and the absent
> entry in /etc/raid0.conf...

I just noticed - I'm running NetBSD from 5th May, but:

revision 1.53
date: 2004/05/22 20:56:52;  author: oster;  state: Exp;  lines: +9 -2
Add support for the word "absent" in the "disks" section of
RAID config files.  Used as a placeholder for a component that
will eventually be added into the set.

So I missed the "absent" trick by a couple of weeks..

I'll try building a new kernel - I won't suffer from version skew, will I?

Cheers,

Patrick