On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 05:09:52AM +0200, Quentin Garnier wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 07:56:07PM -0700, Bill Stouder-Studenmund wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 02:53:02PM +0200, Juan Romero Pardines wrote: > > > 2008/8/26 Quentin Garnier <cube%cubidou.net@localhost>: > > > > > > > I don't think there is any need of opening the devices multiple times. > > > > The ataraid(4) driver should open all the necessary devices for all its > > > > arrays, and then use them. In your example, ataraid0 "owns" wd3 and > > > > wd4, so why would it need to have them opened multiple times? > > > > > > Perhaps I didn't explain this correctly before. In my example I got > > > ataraid0 > > > and (like you said) it owns the disks wd3 and wd4, but my problem is > > > related > > > to the fact that ld0 owns the same VBLK vnode on the same devices than > > > ld1 wants to have access to... therefore once ld0 has taken (and locked) > > > the > > > vnode via VOP_OPEN, subsequents openings to the vnode are failing with > > > EBUSY. > > > > But what exactly do you want to achieve? wtf is ld1 going to do with the > > disks that belong to ld0? How exactly is a disk supposed to be part of a > > RAID 0 _AND_ a RAID 1 at the same time? > > IIUC, the controller allows you to slice disks: e.g., take two halves > out of each, build a RAID1 with one set, and a RAID0 with the other. In > this case both disks belong to each array. Then the right thing to do is somehow export those slices. It makes sense that different slices can be in different RAIDS, but any given slice should be in only one. Take care, Bill
Attachment:
pgpODius4erpO.pgp
Description: PGP signature