Greg Oster wrote:

> Jason Thorpe writes:
>
> > Huh?  What do you mean?  A non-existent partition shouldn't cause the lossage
> > you were seeing...
>
> "What Jason said."  If your disklabels of sd1 and sd2 don't have any 'a'
> partitions, then raidctl should have said:
>
>   raidctl: ioctl (RAIDFRAME_CONFIGURE) failed: Invalid argument
>
> (even with 'raidctl -C ...')
>
> I believe David said:
> > Dec 11 15:23:30 terran /netbsd: sd1: no disk label
>
> Is there an 'a' partition that automatically gets defined??!??!
>
> I'm curious to know that the (default) disklabels look like here...
> (i.e. the output from 'disklabel sd1' and 'disklabel sd2')

Well, if I had actually _read_ the disklabel to begin with, I would have seen:

# /dev/rsd1c:
type: SCSI
disk: RZ1CB-CA (C) DE
label: fictitious
flags:
bytes/sector: 512
sectors/track: 113
tracks/cylinder: 20
sectors/cylinder: 2260
cylinders: 3708
total sectors: 8380080
rpm: 3600
interleave: 1
trackskew: 0
cylinderskew: 0
headswitch: 0           # milliseconds
track-to-track seek: 0  # milliseconds
drivedata: 0

3 partitions:
#        size   offset     fstype   [fsize bsize   cpg]
  c:  8380080        0     unused        0     0         # (Cyl.    0 - 3707)
disklabel: boot block size 0
disklabel: super block size 0

I should add that this machine is coming from Digital UNIX 4.0E, and these disks
were never touched AFAIK, unless by DEC UNIX's automatic install.  Of course there
is no /dev/sd1a _or_ /dev/sd2a:  never was.  That's just me, thinking that 'a'
refers to the entire, unpartitioned disk, when every NetBSD doc under the sun says
it's 'c'.  (Okay, I'm done with the self-flagellation)  That said, raidctl _should_
have given the above error, but bear in mind that 'raidctl -C' means to force the
RAID creation _regardless_ of the disklabels.

> Later...
>
> Greg Oster

Cheers,
dhop