Ryan Cresawn wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I'm somewhat concerned with the current state of the RAIDframe
> documentation and I would like to get some answers from members of
> this mailing list so I can help to improve it.  Here is the URL:
> 
> http://www.netbsd.org/guide/en/chap-rf.html
> 
> I am particularly interested in this documentation because I use
> NetBSD/sparc64.  I use RAID-1 on the boot disks of three Suns for
> obvious reasons.  My concern is that some of the sparc64 specific
> parts of the RAIDframe documentation seem to be incorrect.  I'm hoping
> to get some firm answers to these questions so that I can recommend
> changes to the documentation with confidence.  Here are my specific
> concerns:
> 
> 1.  In my testing I have discovered that after I have created both
>     components of the mirror I have been unable to boot from the
>     original boot disk.  My solution was to create a small partition,
>     'e', which holds the boot block and ofwboot.  Has anyone
>     successfully booted an Ultra 1, an Ultra 5, or any other sparc64
>     computer from both "/dev/[sw]d0a" and "/dev/[sw]d1a" after
>     creating a RAID-1 boot disk mirror per the RAIDframe
>     documentation?  I intend to recommend changes to the RAIDframe
>     documentation that reflect my testing unless someone can convince
>     me otherwise.

for me it runs perfectly the way it is shown in the documentation (for 
several U1Es and U2{E}s.

[for the record: i once set up an U10 and gave it a peeceeish ATA133 
controller (which wasn't supported by OF, obviously) -- this one had to 
boot from the internal IDE; i used a CF-to-IDE adapter and made the CF 
bootable :)]

> 2.  The reason for choosing a particular dumpdev partition size is not
>     stated in the RAIDframe documentation and I believe it should be.
>     It is stated in swapctl(8); however, I believe that there are some
>     users who will not know how to properly select a size for this
>     partition and may select one which is too small.  I believe the
>     RAIDframe documentation should be modified to state that the
>     dumpdev partition size should be equal to or larger than than the
>     amount of physical memory the computer has installed.
>     Furthermore, I believe it would be wise to caution users that they
>     may wish to consider the maximum amount of physical memory their
>     computer can accommodate and consider the likelihood of an upgrade
>     that would cause their dumpdev partition to be undersized.  Do I
>     correctly understand dumpdev size selection?  Should these
>     concerns be included in the RAIDframe documentation?

i agree, IMHO this paragraph{s} lack a bit of glue to fit in well.

however, i'd also recommend to add how to avoid crashdumps entirely 
(some people don't need them ;):

http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-help/2005/08/19/0014.html

i used this to make my machines secure very easy after they were 
colocated 600km away from home.

> If you would like to read more about my testing and why I'm now
> writing port-sparc64 please read my posts on netbsd-docs beginning
> August of this year.
> 
> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-docs/2005/08/
> 
> Thanks in advance for your feedback,
> Ryan

timo