Hi. There is a typo on http://www.netbsd.org/guide/en/chap-rf.html#chap-rf-configuring-raid Just under section 15.3.5. Initializing the RAID Device it says: # vi /var/tmp/raid0.conf START array 1 2 0 START disks /dev/wd9a /dev/wd1a Where wd9a should be replaced with wd0a. Cheers, Marcin.
Marcin Jessa <lists <at> yazzy.org> writes: > Hi. > > There is a typo on http://www.netbsd.org/guide/en/chap-rf.html#chap-rf-configuring-raid > Just under section 15.3.5. Initializing the RAID Device it says: > > # vi /var/tmp/raid0.conf > START array > 1 2 0 > > START disks > /dev/wd9a > /dev/wd1a > > Where wd9a should be replaced with wd0a. Fixed thanks. -- -- Rui Paulo <rpaulo <at> {NetBSD{,-PT}.org,fnop.net}>
Rui Paulo <rpaulo <at> fnop.net> writes: > Marcin Jessa <lists <at> yazzy.org> writes: > >> Hi. >> >> There is a typo on http://www.netbsd.org/guide/en/chap-rf.html#chap-rf-configuring-raid >> Just under section 15.3.5. Initializing the RAID Device it says: >> >> # vi /var/tmp/raid0.conf >> START array >> 1 2 0 >> >> START disks >> /dev/wd9a >> /dev/wd1a >> >> Where wd9a should be replaced with wd0a. > > Fixed thanks. Oops, it was wrong. wd9 makes sense. -- -- Rui Paulo <rpaulo <at> {NetBSD{,-PT}.org,fnop.net}>
On Wed, 3 May 2006 01:36:05 +0200 (CEST) Hubert Feyrer <hubert <at> feyrer.de> wrote: > On Tue, 2 May 2006, Rui Paulo wrote: > > Oops, it was wrong. wd9 makes sense. > > Indeed. > > FWIW, I've re-generated the latest version, which is after going back to > wd9. Oh dang it, I am sorry. Of course it is correct and handles about creation of a fake device. Seems like I was way too tired reading the doc. I messed up my server I was working on too and it did not come up after shutdown. I should know better than that. Sorry for the confusion again guys. Marcin.
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 11:53:35PM +0100, Rui Paulo wrote: > Oops, it was wrong. wd9 makes sense. Can anyone explain why the guid should not use "absent" now? Maybe with a not that on older versions you should replace it with wd9 or some other arbitrary, non-existant device? Martin
On Tue, 02 May 2006 22:34:29 +0100 Rui Paulo <rpaulo <at> fnop.net> wrote: > Marcin Jessa <lists <at> yazzy.org> writes: > > > Hi. > > > > There is a typo on http://www.netbsd.org/guide/en/chap-rf.html#chap-rf-configuring-raid > > Just under section 15.3.5. Initializing the RAID Device it says: > > > > # vi /var/tmp/raid0.conf > > START array > > 1 2 0 > > > > START disks > > /dev/wd9a > > /dev/wd1a > > > > Where wd9a should be replaced with wd0a. > > Fixed thanks. One more thing. Maybe newfs -O 1 /dev/raid0a in the 15.3.6. Setting up Filesystems should also mention -O 2 since UFS2 is suitable for drives with more than 1 Terabyte capacity and it is already today possible to get 750G SATA drives. The same will then go for installboot using /usr/mdec/bootxx_ffsv2 instead of /usr/mdec/bootxx_ffsv1 Having http://mail-index.netbsd.org/port-xen/2006/03/01/0010.html included/adapted as well could IMHO be a good thing.(Continue reading)
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 08:16:27PM +0000, Marcin Jessa wrote: > > One more thing. Maybe newfs -O 1 /dev/raid0a in the 15.3.6. Setting up Filesystems > should also mention -O 2 since UFS2 is suitable for drives with more > than 1 Terabyte capacity and it is already today possible to get 750G SATA drives. Is it? The 'lazy' initialisation of inodes makes newfs quicker. But the inodes themselves are twice the size and will take up more system memory.... FFSv1 should be able to handle filesystems with up to 2^32 fragments, With 8k fragments I make that 32TB. Since NetBSD currently has problems describing disks over 2TB, and there are known FS corruption issues over that limit, there is no necessity to use FFSv2. Remember the FS code is identical, only the sizes of some fields changed. David -- -- David Laight: david <at> l8s.co.uk
Martin
On Fri, 5 May 2006 08:04:30 +0100
David Laight <david <at> l8s.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 08:16:27PM +0000, Marcin Jessa wrote:
> >
> > One more thing. Maybe newfs -O 1 /dev/raid0a in the 15.3.6. Setting
> > up Filesystems should also mention -O 2 since UFS2 is suitable for
> > drives with more than 1 Terabyte capacity and it is already today
> > possible to get 750G SATA drives.
>
> Is it? The 'lazy' initialisation of inodes makes newfs quicker.
> But the inodes themselves are twice the size and will take up more
> system memory....
>
> FFSv1 should be able to handle filesystems with up to 2^32 fragments,
> With 8k fragments I make that 32TB.
> Since NetBSD currently has problems describing disks over 2TB, and
> there are known FS corruption issues over that limit, there is no
> necessity to use FFSv2.
> Remember the FS code is identical, only the sizes of some fields
> changed.
So you're saying using FFSv2 over FFSv1 would add extra overhead and is
actually a bad thing to do?
Ok, in that case maybe newfs(8) should be changed.
Based on the info in it I chose FFSv2 instead of 1 for my system.
-O filesystem-format
Select the filesystem-format
0 4.3BSD; This option is primarily used to
(Continue reading)
RSS Feed2 | |
|---|---|
7 | |
8 | |
10 | |
2 | |
7 | |
5 | |
4 | |
23 | |
14 | |
4 | |
4 | |
6 | |
2 | |
1 | |
4 | |
9 | |
6 | |
10 | |
1 | |
2 | |
11 | |
1 | |
1 | |
4 | |
4 | |
4 | |
14 | |
1 | |
16 | |
5 | |
7 | |
14 | |
2 | |
2 | |
1 | |
1 | |
7 | |
10 | |
4 | |
1 | |
3 | |
4 | |
1 | |
17 | |
1 | |
3 | |
7 | |
9 | |
3 | |
19 | |
6 | |
3 | |
5 | |
10 | |
6 | |
3 | |
8 | |
14 | |
39 | |
139 | |
2 | |
4 | |
22 | |
37 | |
44 | |
17 | |
20 | |
17 | |
17 | |
19 | |
28 | |
44 | |
26 | |
36 | |
55 | |
31 | |
32 | |
55 | |
47 | |
36 | |
92 | |
37 | |
64 | |
67 | |
28 | |
9 | |
19 | |
27 | |
39 | |
34 | |
19 | |
21 | |
20 | |
5 | |
13 | |
32 | |
11 | |
53 | |
40 | |
46 | |
71 | |
11 | |
22 | |
21 | |
34 | |
30 | |
38 | |
13 | |
4 | |
30 | |
3 | |
8 | |
12 | |
13 | |
15 | |
9 | |
21 | |
15 | |
39 | |
1 | |
15 |
