Re: Maximum size of FFS partition with NetBSD/i386

[Stephen Borrill <netbsd%precedence.co.uk@localhost>]

On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Ray Phillips wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Ray Phillips wrote:
> > > > I'm not sure all of my changes were pulled up to the netbsd-5-0 branch. 
> > > > Could you try a daily build of netbsd-5 instead?
> > >
> > > This boot file behaved the same as 5.0.1's
> > >
> > > ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD-daily/netbsd-5-0/200908060000Z/i386/installation/cdrom/boot.iso
> > >
> > > but this one worked
> > >
> > > ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD-daily/HEAD/200908060000Z/i386/installation/cdrom/boot.iso
> >
> > Yes, but how about netbsd-5? i.e. in 
> > ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD-daily/netbsd-5/
>
> I did look in there, but there were no binaries.
>
> > I'm aware that the netbsd-5 builds are currently failing, so there are no 
> > binaries there at present. When builds resume, can you test?
>
> There were some today when I checked.  This one was able to partition the ~ 
> 1.8 TB partition correctly:
>
> ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD-daily/netbsd-5/200908070002Z/i386/installation/cdrom/boot.iso

Excellent.

> but the RAIDframe problem is still present.

Hmm, I must have ignored that bit of your previous mails.

disklabel only supports up to 2TB. You were trying to create a 3.6TB block 
device by doing a raid0 of 2x 1.8TB devices. That's fine if you want to 
deal with either wedges or (the cheap hack of) newfsing the raw device 
(i.e. /dev/rraid0d). You won't be able to boot from this though, so it 
would need to be secondary data storage, not your root filesystem.

> Which stable release will this fix be in--NetBSD 5.0.2, or maybe 5.1.0 ?

It'll definitely be in 5.1 as the netbsd-5 branch is working towards it.

--
Stephen