> below, the dmesg dump from my Server running 2.0 Kernel.
> I think 2.0 is getting to become one of best Releases ever.

That's good to hear!  However, I have to point out that you are
running -current, not a beta release of 2.0.  Admittedly, the
changes between the two may not be huge at this moment.  For further
information about how 2.0E and 2.0_BETA (which will become 2.0
proper when it's ready) see

  http://www.netbsd.org/Releases/release-map.html

It's nice to hear your benchmark test results as well, of course!

> Install:
> If you select "whole disk" during Installation, NetBSD is not able to=
 boot,
> because it installs itself in the 3rd Hard Disk Partition.
> If you select "part of disk" and then choose the 1st Partition 0 then=
,
> everything works fine.

That sounds like a bug to me.  Can you please report this formally
by submitting a bug report with send-pr?  Of interest would be the
result of "fdisk" on the boot disk, as well as an "od -c" dump of
the first 512 bytes of the physical boot disk (/dev/rld0d) as well
as the NetBSD part (/dev/rld0c) when sysinst has done it's thing.
That is, if you can afford to reinstall...

> Frag Size & Block Size:
> This was the first time, I saw, that NetBSD could not newfs. I had to=
 change
> the frag & blocksize. (this should be done automatically)

Yes, it should.  Again, could you please submit a bug report with
the exact error message, and what you had to adjust the fragment and
block sizes to?

> There were two 120GB running RAID 0 (mirror) recognized as ld0.

RAID 0 is commonly referred to as striping, but since your ld0
reports 111 (binary) GB, you must be doing RAID 1 (mirroring).  I
don't know, but it's conceivable that the drive geometry in the BSD
disklabel makes a difference which might explain why you didn't
observe the problem on a single-120GB-disk system.  Since ld0 is
only addressed by block number, I guess you could tweak the drive
geometry in the BSD disklabel and thereby possibly avoid having to
adjust the block and fragment sizes.  I don't know what it would
take to produce more reasonable defaults; I'm guessing the drive
geometry comes from the BIOS on the twe controller.

Best regards,

- H=E5vard