Re: Success report: RAID-0,1,4,5 patch 1998.12.14, 2.0.36/2.1.131-ac9

1998-12-15 Thread Osma Ahvenlampi
MOLNAR Ingo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > This needs to change :( The scsi layer needs to be a lot more robust than > > it is now. > NCR8xx survives just fine (this is what i use). Adaptec and Buslogic > should survive as well. It's a _bug_ if the SCSI driver does not survive a > drive going off

Re: Success report: RAID-0,1,4,5 patch 1998.12.14, 2.0.36/2.1.131-ac9

1998-12-14 Thread MOLNAR Ingo
On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Dan Hollis wrote: > On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, David Harris wrote: > > (2) Killed power to sdb while system was running. This caused a lockup > > because the scsi driver could not handle loosing a drive. > > This needs to change :( The scsi layer needs to be a lot more robust tha

Re: Success report: RAID-0,1,4,5 patch 1998.12.14, 2.0.36/2.1.131-ac9

1998-12-14 Thread Dan Hollis
On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, David Harris wrote: > (2) Killed power to sdb while system was running. This caused a lockup > because the scsi driver could not handle loosing a drive. This needs to change :( The scsi layer needs to be a lot more robust than it is now. -Dan

[patch 1998.12.15] (was: Re: Success report: RAID-0,1,4,5 patch , 1998.12.14, 2.0.36/2.1.131-ac9)

1998-12-14 Thread MOLNAR Ingo
On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, David Harris wrote: > Only one complaint: Using the "raidhotadd" command on a md device which is > in readonly mode still crashes the system. Something should stop the user > from doing this, either in the kernel ioctl or in the raidtools command. good point, i have not th

Success report: RAID-0,1,4,5 patch 1998.12.14, 2.0.36/2.1.131-ac9

1998-12-14 Thread David Harris
Hi, I just installed the 1998.12.14 raid driver kernel patch and raidtools released earlier today, and I'm happy to report that it works like a charm. In fact, the server I tested it on is going into production later today. I took it through all of my usual tests, which I've detailed below. The