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 t
> 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 impor
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
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.
> 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
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.
> 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 RAMD
* 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
> >> k
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 ra
> 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 i
* 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
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 GENE
> 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 y
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 dev
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"
15 matches
Mail list logo
