Re: Problems with raidframe under NetBSD-5.1/i386

[Greg Oster <oster%cs.usask.ca@localhost>]

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 09:34:16 -0800
buhrow%lothlorien.nfbcal.org@localhost (Brian Buhrow) wrote:

>       Hello.  See below.
> 
> 
> > I really don't get why the creation of the raid set would have
> > succeeded before, but not afterwards.... Was the RAID set created in
> > single-user mode or from sysinst or something?  Is there some
> > 'securelevel' thing coming into play?  I'm just guessing here, as
> > this makes no sense to me :(  (The thing is: RAIDframe shouldn't be
> > touching any of those 'protected' areas of the disk anyway... the
> > first 64 blocks are reserved, with the component label and such
> > being at the half-way point.  So even if you used an offset of 0,
> > it would have only been looking to touch blocks 32 and 33 (for parity
> > logging).... so unless something is protecting all of the first 63
> > blocks it shouldn't be complaining :( )
>       In thinking about this further, I'm not sure why it was
> failing in this way either.  My error should have  made the raid set
> look like it was on the raw partition, rather than a miscalculated a
> partition, since both partitions started at offset 0 on the disk.
>       The raid sets were created using raidctl -C /etc/raidx.conf
> raidx in multiuser mode.  The error would show itself when the raid
> driver would try to write to block 64 of the underlying component.
> Perhaps because "errors are being ignored" was in effect with the -C
> flag, I missed the complaint when the raid set was created.

No... the errors that it ignores are those related to bogus component
labels and the fact that the set hasn't been setup... If there is a
hard error then the configuration should fail, regardless of whether
you use '-C' or '-c'.

Later...

Greg Oster