Timo,

Thanks for your response.  I'm sure I should have mentioned that
2.0.2, with the GENERIC kernel, is the version of NetBSD/sparc64 I
used for my tests.  Is that what you used?


On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 08:48:36AM +0200, Timo Schoeler wrote:
> Ryan Cresawn wrote:
> >
> >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 :)]


It's a little surprising that your experience was so different than
mine.  Take a look at this netbsd-docs mailing post, if you don't
mind, and you'll see what problems I had:

http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-docs/2005/08/16/0001.html

Have you ever encountered those OpenFirmware errors?  Do you have an
idea why I did?


> >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.
>
> timo


Yes, the section on swap and dumpdev partitions is confusing.  I
always cross my fingers after configuring these partitions in hopes
that I've done it right.  The documentation appears to offer only one
way to do it---the most sophisticated way.

Thanks for your feedback,
Ryan