Greg Oster wrote:
> Mark Cullen writes:
> 
>>[snip]
> 
> '-i' only works to initialize a complete RAID set.  In your case, it 
> has flagged one of the components as 'failed', which means you need 
> to rebuild it.. 
> 

Right, got it.

> 
>>This would mean that the 'master' would always be the first working drive?
> 
> 
> Yes.
>  
> 
>>[snip]
>>
>>Oh, and I tried adding a spare and reconstructing from that. It actually 
>>wasn't `raidctl -R absent raid0`, it was `raidctl -R component1 raid0`, 
> 
> 
> Oh.. right :) (Been a while since I've done that :) )

:)

>> [snip]
>>
>>
>>One last question (I think). Is it safe to use RAIDFrame on a UFS2 FS, 
>>with softdep enabled? 
> 
> 
> What filesystem you put on top of RAIDframe is of little concern to 
> RAIDframe.  Softdep shouldn't have any more or fewer problems than it 
> would have on a single spindle...  (I havn't run softdeps in ages, 
> but I have run UFS2, UFS, and LFS on top of RAIDframe RAID sets...)

Ok, just vinum wasn't supposed to cause any problems with softupdates... 
but, well, it did for me :-S

> 
> 
>> [snip]
> 
> 
> Dunno... it depends on what your criteria are for a successful test 
> :)  (I usually just do a bunch of simultanous extractions of 
> pkgsrc.tar.gz, coupled with some concurrent "rm -rf"'s of those same 
> pkgsrc directories after they've been running for a bit :)  When the 
> it seems to be surviving for a few hours at a 150 load average, I 
> figure it's working reasonably well ;) )

Woah. I'd say that was working pretty well indeed :-P

> 
> 
>>I've actually ordered a new disk, and I hope to switch over to NetBSD 
>>sometime next week if all goes well. Hopefully I won't run in to any 
>>strange issues :-)
>>
>>Thanks all!
> 
> 
> Later...
> 
> Greg Oster
> 
> 
> 

I shall be posting back later in the week *if* anything goes wrong, but 
I don't expect it will really.

Thanks very much, everyone, for all your help!