Re: Why does GENERIC kernel for OpenBSD 4.8 and 4.9 not support software RAID
* Tyler Morgan tyl...@tradetech.net [2011-05-05 00:43]: I bet I'm not the only person using RAIDFrame close to production without realizing it's not even maintained code. if it's not in GENERIC is not a strong enough hint, I dunno. -- Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting
Re: Why does GENERIC kernel for OpenBSD 4.8 and 4.9 not support software RAID
On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 01:01:27AM +0200, rob...@openbsd.pap.st wrote: On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:38:46 -0700 Tyler Morgan tyl...@tradetech.net wrote: On 5/4/2011 10:04 AM, Josh Grosse wrote: http://www.ec (plz all stop pushing that links search engine rank.) I think this is mainly due to the fact that softraid can't be used for the root partition (or booted off of, for now). This leads everyone to follow RAIDFrame guides to install OpenBSD onto software RAID1, but nobody bothers to mention that RAIDFrame isn't actually maintained anymore. And I have a feeling it's why my routers crash once every few months or so with some odd, sd0/sd1 related FIFO errors (using SSDs too...). I'm currently pulling RAIDFrame out of various routers and not using any RAID at all anymore -- CARP + pfsync + duplicate hardware is enough for what these routers do. In no way am I blaming anyone here -- it's obviously my fault that I didn't read the 4.7 FAQ closer and learn about softraid -- but I think large amounts of people are being lead to RAIDFrame via Google without fully realizing what they are using or why they might be making a bad decision. Along the line of: Why tf doesn't my root-partition change often enough, so that i am not ok by simply using ALTROOT? Didn't expect me to read the afterboot manpage as i was prompted, didn't you? BTW, I setup a server with ALTROOT feature. After 3 months, the root disk (where / lives) partially broke and the daily job screw up my /dev/r$rootbak with the dd(1) command ... -- Olivier Cherrier - Symacx.com mailto:o...@symacx.com
Re: Why does GENERIC kernel for OpenBSD 4.8 and 4.9 not support software RAID
On 05/05/11 03:50, Olivier Cherrier wrote: ... BTW, I setup a server with ALTROOT feature. After 3 months, the root disk (where / lives) partially broke and the daily job screw up my /dev/r$rootbak with the dd(1) command ... Welcome to the world of RAID. I suspect your intent on posting was hey, altroot ain't so cool, look, it can fail!, but your REAL lesson should be, be ready with a backup, RAID won't always save you. If you haven't seen similar failure mode in HW or SW true RAID, you have a few choices: 1: consider yourself lucky, 2: wait for it, 3: die soon (I suggest hoping for option 1, plan for option 2). One example: drive failed on machine. Replace drive. Remirror (in HW RAID) fails with message of something like failure rebuilding new disk. Replace new disk, try again, same error. Repeat a few more times, until finally realizing the REAL problem was the remaining disk had an unreadable section on it, and THAT caused the remirror failure. At least you quickly understood what happened, we lost a couple evenings working on that one. Nick.
Re: Why does GENERIC kernel for OpenBSD 4.8 and 4.9 not support software RAID
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:01 PM, roberth rob...@openbsd.pap.st wrote: On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:38:46 -0700 Tyler Morgan tyl...@tradetech.net wrote: On 5/4/2011 10:04 AM, Josh Grosse wrote: http://www.ec (plz all stop pushing that links search engine rank.) I think this is mainly due to the fact that softraid can't be used for the root partition (or booted off of, for now). This leads everyone to follow RAIDFrame guides to install OpenBSD onto software RAID1, but nobody bothers to mention that RAIDFrame isn't actually maintained anymore. Give the man a kewpie doll!!! I'm dealing with modest server hardware, which didn't have workable hardware RAID. I've found the hardware RAID compatibility chart to be awkward: much of the recommended hardware is no longer manufactured or not sufficiently specified to rely on. Naming a chipset is not enough: a model number is really ideal, because saying LSI or Dell Perc covers dozens of different cards, some of which may be very reliable but others are not. I used to recommend 3Ware from good experience and and general UNIX/Linux compatibillity, but they got bought by LSI: gods only know what their quality is these days. Also, I just went and tried the sensible guidelines at http://jpiasetz.tumblr.com/post/483365684/software-raid-on-openbsd-using-softraid, which use softraid for non-/boot partitions. Seems reasonable, but this command simply fails: # bioctl -C force -c 1 -l /dev/wd0d,/dev/wd1d softraid0 # dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/rsd0c bs=1m count=1 bioctl: Can't locate raid0 device via /dev/bio The documentation on bioctl is reasonably, and detailed, and not very useful due to not having examples for noobs.
Re: Why does GENERIC kernel for OpenBSD 4.8 and 4.9 not support software RAID
On Thu, 5 May 2011 07:00:50 -0400 Nico Kadel-Garcia nka...@gmail.com wrote: The documentation on bioctl is reasonably, and detailed, and not very useful due to not having examples for noobs. kind of the point. the examples explain the syntax in a more readable way. the manpages encourage to understand how the magic works, instead of just blindly pressing the blue button.
Re: Why does GENERIC kernel for OpenBSD 4.8 and 4.9 not support software RAID
On Thu, 5 May 2011 08:25:30 +0200 Henning Brauer wrote: I bet I'm not the only person using RAIDFrame close to production without realizing it's not even maintained code. if it's not in GENERIC is not a strong enough hint, I dunno. Actually, it's a little known fact that all the best bits of code are automatically turned on by an email from theo when you've bought your 50th cd and when you've used 50 downloaded cd's without buying one, an email changes your language to klingon. Top Tip: you can cheat the system by buying 50 4.9s, you don't have to wait for 50 releases.
Re: Why does GENERIC kernel for OpenBSD 4.8 and 4.9 not support software RAID
* Nico Kadel-Garcia nka...@gmail.com [2011-05-04 14:55]: I've been using the very helpful notes at http://www.eclectica.ca/howto/openbsd-software-raid-howto.php, they are not helpful, they are 100% obsolete. you want softraid(4), which is, surprise! in GENERIC. -- Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting
Re: Why does GENERIC kernel for OpenBSD 4.8 and 4.9 not support software RAID
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia nka...@gmail.com wrote: I've been using the very helpful notes at http://www.eclectica.ca/howto/openbsd-software-raid-howto.php, which works, but does document needing to build a new kernel to enable software RAID. (I included GENERIC.MP in my GENERIC.MPRAID configuration: it's a multi-core machine.) But I had a fascinating chat with another engineer, who I suspect has worked more with OpenBSD than I have, who is very surprised at this requirement. He pointed out that GENERIC is normally the kitchen sink kernel, with everything possible enabled. I've checked the source, and I see where the RAID is disabled in the GENERIC kernel, but would like to know why. Is there a significant performance or reliability risk with that feature enabled? I've not found anything in the archives that explains this, although it's *awfully* hard to find useful information with such generic keywords as software RAID. The one of the many benefits of OpenBSD is its superb documentation especially when comparing with lack of that in Linux and other systems which tries to supply that by posts around Internet which are outdated and mostly wrong. So see http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq14.html#RAID
Re: Why does GENERIC kernel for OpenBSD 4.8 and 4.9 not support software RAID
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 03:49:12PM +0200, Tomas Bodzar wrote: ... So see http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq14.html#RAID I still use raid(4) -- RAIDframe -- for it's root-on-RAID capability. I eagerly await the completion of root-on-RAID with softraid(4). My thanks to Joel, Jordan, Marco, and the rest of the team developing this.
Re: Why does GENERIC kernel for OpenBSD 4.8 and 4.9 not support software RAID
On 2011-05-04, Nico Kadel-Garcia nka...@gmail.com wrote: I've been using the very helpful notes at http://www.eclectica.ca/howto/openbsd-software-raid-howto.php, which works, but does document needing to build a new kernel to enable software RAID. (I included GENERIC.MP in my GENERIC.MPRAID configuration: it's a multi-core machine.) But I had a fascinating chat with another engineer, who I suspect has worked more with OpenBSD than I have, who is very surprised at this requirement. He pointed out that GENERIC is normally the kitchen sink kernel, with everything possible enabled. Not everything possible; rather everything we expect to work reasonably well.
Re: Why does GENERIC kernel for OpenBSD 4.8 and 4.9 not support software RAID
On 5/4/2011 10:04 AM, Josh Grosse wrote: I still use raid(4) -- RAIDframe -- for it's root-on-RAID capability. I eagerly await the completion of root-on-RAID with softraid(4). My thanks to Joel, Jordan, Marco, and the rest of the team developing this. I use RAIDFrame too, but it was a mistake; I had no idea RAIDFrame was no longer maintained and had no idea of the existence of softraid when I installed and implemented 4.6/4.7 machines over the last year or so. I hadn't used OpenBSD since 3.x days but I knew I needed it for some routing at work. I also knew I needed some software RAID. Almost every result from Googling something along the lines of installing OpenBSD onto a software RAID leads to a RAIDFrame guide like the one at http://www.eclectica.ca/howto/openbsd-software-raid-howto.php I'm excited to hear softraid is coming along, and remember reading that support for booting off of one was recently committed. The work done on softraid is very appreciated and I look forward to seeing more of it committed, but the reality is there is a significant split regarding software RAID in OpenBSD. I bet I'm not the only person using RAIDFrame close to production without realizing it's not even maintained code. I think this is mainly due to the fact that softraid can't be used for the root partition (or booted off of, for now). This leads everyone to follow RAIDFrame guides to install OpenBSD onto software RAID1, but nobody bothers to mention that RAIDFrame isn't actually maintained anymore. And I have a feeling it's why my routers crash once every few months or so with some odd, sd0/sd1 related FIFO errors (using SSDs too...). I'm currently pulling RAIDFrame out of various routers and not using any RAID at all anymore -- CARP + pfsync + duplicate hardware is enough for what these routers do. In no way am I blaming anyone here -- it's obviously my fault that I didn't read the 4.7 FAQ closer and learn about softraid -- but I think large amounts of people are being lead to RAIDFrame via Google without fully realizing what they are using or why they might be making a bad decision.
Re: Why does GENERIC kernel for OpenBSD 4.8 and 4.9 not support software RAID
On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:38:46 -0700 Tyler Morgan tyl...@tradetech.net wrote: On 5/4/2011 10:04 AM, Josh Grosse wrote: http://www.ec (plz all stop pushing that links search engine rank.) I think this is mainly due to the fact that softraid can't be used for the root partition (or booted off of, for now). This leads everyone to follow RAIDFrame guides to install OpenBSD onto software RAID1, but nobody bothers to mention that RAIDFrame isn't actually maintained anymore. And I have a feeling it's why my routers crash once every few months or so with some odd, sd0/sd1 related FIFO errors (using SSDs too...). I'm currently pulling RAIDFrame out of various routers and not using any RAID at all anymore -- CARP + pfsync + duplicate hardware is enough for what these routers do. In no way am I blaming anyone here -- it's obviously my fault that I didn't read the 4.7 FAQ closer and learn about softraid -- but I think large amounts of people are being lead to RAIDFrame via Google without fully realizing what they are using or why they might be making a bad decision. Along the line of: Why tf doesn't my root-partition change often enough, so that i am not ok by simply using ALTROOT? Didn't expect me to read the afterboot manpage as i was prompted, didn't you? (Not addressing you personally, just picking up the vibe.)
Re: Why does GENERIC kernel for OpenBSD 4.8 and 4.9 not support software RAID
Top posting only because this phone's current Email client forces me to. I think that admonition looks like it was in regards to my post. A or two are absent. The link was Tyler's, not mine. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. roberth rob...@openbsd.pap.st wrote: On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:38:46 -0700 Tyler Morgan tyl...@tradetech.net wrote: On 5/4/2011 10:04 AM, Josh Grosse wrote: http://www.ec (plz all stop pushing that links search engine rank.) I think this is mainly due to the fact that softraid can't be used for the root partition (or booted off of, for now). This leads everyone to follow RAIDFrame guides to install OpenBSD onto software RAID1, but nobody bothers to mention that RAIDFrame isn't actually maintained anymore. And I have a feeling it's why my routers crash once every few months or so with some odd, sd0/sd1 related FIFO errors (using SSDs too...). I'm currently pulling RAIDFrame out of various routers and not using any RAID at all anymore -- CARP + pfsync + duplicate hardware is enough for what these routers do. In no way am I blaming anyone here -- it's obviously my fault that I didn't read the 4.7 FAQ closer and learn about softraid -- but I think large amounts of people are being lead to RAIDFrame via Google without fully realizing what they are using or why they might be making a bad decision. Along the line of: Why tf doesn't my root-partition change often enough, so that i am not ok by simply using ALTROOT? Didn't expect me to read the afterboot manpage as i was prompted, didn't you? (Not addressing you personally, just picking up the vibe.)
