Re: raid kernel
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Ed White wrote: > > do you think the archives are poo too, or do you plan to read them? > > I have already read the archives. You keep saying, there is no plan to import > it. However you did created a patch for OpenBSD 3.2, so maybe you or someone > else could write (for the archives) *why* there isn't any plan to import it. ?! please articulate the reasons it is necessary to import cgd. -- And that's why I love it here.
Re: raid kernel
> do you think the archives are poo too, or do you plan to read them? I have already read the archives. You keep saying, there is no plan to import it. However you did created a patch for OpenBSD 3.2, so maybe you or someone else could write (for the archives) *why* there isn't any plan to import it. Is there anyone who thinks cgd is poo? Just say that, for the archives, obviously...
Re: raid kernel
Is there any hope to see the "live network backup" that NetBSD's developer "der Mouse" presented at BSDCan 2005? ( http://www.bsdcan.org/2005/activity.php?id=54 ) I may not be a developer of OpenBSD, but I think that anything Mike Parker says or does should be ignored, just because of the kind of person he is, he's a kid that needed to be spanked more when he was still a child. It's sad that NetBSD lets Mike use that as a mockery of Theo instead of have him like a grown up and make use of his real name. I'd not want someone like that associated with my project. _ Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft. SmartScreen Technology. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN. Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.
Re: raid kernel
On Sun, 28 Aug 2005, Ed White wrote: > And by the way, do you think that NetBSD's cgd is poo too, or do you plan to > import it? do you think the archives are poo too, or do you plan to read them? -- And that's why it's so good.
Re: raid kernel
> I want a raid model that acts as if it is a regular scsi drive, ie. > sdN. Like our hardware raid controllers work. Right now what we > have in the tree is poo, and vinum is just as much poo too. Is there any hope to see the "live network backup" that NetBSD's developer "der Mouse" presented at BSDCan 2005? ( http://www.bsdcan.org/2005/activity.php?id=54 ) And by the way, do you think that NetBSD's cgd is poo too, or do you plan to import it?
Re: raid kernel
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005, Jim Razmus wrote: > Just curious, what does the dev team think about Vinum? the conclusion is it doesn't do anything you can't do now. -- And that's why I started this thread.
Re: raid kernel
> Just curious, what does the dev team think about Vinum? I want a raid model that acts as if it is a regular scsi drive, ie. sdN. Like our hardware raid controllers work. Right now what we have in the tree is poo, and vinum is just as much poo too. I do not envision enabling this stuff in RAMDISKs anytime soon, so please stop asking.
Re: raid kernel
* Nick Holland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050825 07:22]: > Edd Barrett wrote: > >> rather then trying more stupid band-aids and wuergarounds it would be > >> fantastic if someone could sit down and get us a software raid > >> implementation that doesn't suck and thus can be included in the regular > >> kernels. > > > > I havent noticed anything terribly wrong with raidframe. Why do you > > think it sucks? > > > > The only drawback with raidframe i see is that mirrors can only be 2 disks. > > * huge > * complex > * you can't add mirroring after initial install if you weren't planning > for it at the beginning. > * its recovery from "events" is not graceful (i.e., long boot times). > > That's just a starter... > > (can't believe I forgot the bsd.mp case...) > > Nick. > Just curious, what does the dev team think about Vinum? Jim
Re: raid kernel
Edd Barrett wrote: >> rather then trying more stupid band-aids and wuergarounds it would be >> fantastic if someone could sit down and get us a software raid >> implementation that doesn't suck and thus can be included in the regular >> kernels. > > I havent noticed anything terribly wrong with raidframe. Why do you > think it sucks? > > The only drawback with raidframe i see is that mirrors can only be 2 disks. * huge * complex * you can't add mirroring after initial install if you weren't planning for it at the beginning. * its recovery from "events" is not graceful (i.e., long boot times). That's just a starter... (can't believe I forgot the bsd.mp case...) Nick.
Re: raid kernel
> rather then trying more stupid band-aids and wuergarounds it would be > fantastic if someone could sit down and get us a software raid > implementation that doesn't suck and thus can be included in the regular > kernels. I havent noticed anything terribly wrong with raidframe. Why do you think it sucks? The only drawback with raidframe i see is that mirrors can only be 2 disks. Regards Edd
Re: raid kernel
* Nick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-24 13:16]: > Edd Barrett wrote: > > Is there any reason why we can not include a raid enabled kernel in > > the distribution? (not as default, but in the same way bsd.mp is). > > I believe this would save me (and others?) time when upgrading OpenBSD > > machines. > > The kernel would need static device node configuration, "device raid" > > and "option RAID_AUTOCONFIG" > > There may well be a very good reason this hasnt been done before which > > I have overlooked, and if so I apologise in advance. > For one, what if you don't want "RAID_AUTOCONFIG"? > It would save YOU time if we set the options you needed. If not, it > would cause more complaints about "how could you chose such an option?" > > Further, it would probably need to be TWO new kernels -- bsd.raid and > bsd.raid.rd, as you would need an install/maintenance kernel, too. and bsd.raid.mp, too! rather then trying more stupid band-aids and wuergarounds it would be fantastic if someone could sit down and get us a software raid implementation that doesn't suck and thus can be included in the regular kernels. -- BS Web Services, http://www.bsws.de/ OpenBSD-based Webhosting, Mail Services, Managed Servers, ... Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity. (Dennis Ritchie)
Re: raid kernel
One point in favour of a GENERIC RAID Kernel(s), consider when a user posts the following request for help: 'I've compiled my own kernel and Xyz is broken' Now after being on the mailing list for a quite a while I know the stock answer always seems to be 'drop back to GENERIC and stop playing with custom kernels if you want help from this list'. Now if the user is using RAID and has APPS/Data etc on a raid volume this isn't exactly going to be easy. Now I 100% understand this thinking and won't raise a complaint against it, but as your now advocating that in order to use a key feature of OBSD a custom kernel is 'the way' where does that leave the sys admins such as myself when it comes to support from the lists? By having a GENERIC RAID kernel, with or without various options would at least allow for some alternate yet supported systems all be it at an increased workload for the team I'm not currently using any kernel based system so have no axe to grid, I'm just making an observation. just my 2 pence anyway.
Re: raid kernel
> For one, what if you don't want "RAID_AUTOCONFIG"? > It would save YOU time if we set the options you needed. If not, it > would cause more complaints about "how could you chose such an option?" True > > Further, it would probably need to be TWO new kernels -- bsd.raid and > bsd.raid.rd, as you would need an install/maintenance kernel, too. And > that would add a lot of testing for developers at around this time... Also people who want mp and raid will complain. > > Personally, I'd rather keep the focus on the simple system, rather than > the possible combinations required to do proper RAID testing every > release... As I said. I probably overlooked something.. It was just a suggestion. Thanks for your input Regards Edd
Re: raid kernel
Edd Barrett wrote: > Hi there, > > Is there any reason why we can not include a raid enabled kernel in > the distribution? (not as default, but in the same way bsd.mp is). > > I believe this would save me (and others?) time when upgrading OpenBSD > machines. > > The kernel would need static device node configuration, "device raid" > and "option RAID_AUTOCONFIG" > > There may well be a very good reason this hasnt been done before which > I have overlooked, and if so I apologise in advance. For one, what if you don't want "RAID_AUTOCONFIG"? It would save YOU time if we set the options you needed. If not, it would cause more complaints about "how could you chose such an option?" Further, it would probably need to be TWO new kernels -- bsd.raid and bsd.raid.rd, as you would need an install/maintenance kernel, too. And that would add a lot of testing for developers at around this time... Personally, I'd rather keep the focus on the simple system, rather than the possible combinations required to do proper RAID testing every release... Nick.
