From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 16 07:48:29 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A326316A4CE for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 07:48:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from enema.egg.net (enema.egg.net [198.206.140.9]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEBEA43D3F for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 07:48:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tomg@egg.net) Received: by enema.egg.net (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 0185D17D; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 07:48:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by enema.egg.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB337170 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 07:48:29 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 07:48:29 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Glover To: stable@freebsd.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Promise controller and 5.2 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:48:29 -0000 I am running 5.2-RELEASE with a Promise S150 TX4 Serial ATA RAID controller and a couple of WDC SATA drives at RAID 1. I am noticing some behavior that does not seem right to me. Systems boots fine on the two mirrored drives. If I disconnect the drive on channel 2 then the system continues to run. However if I disconnect the drive on channel 1 it dies. It appears that there is a primary drive on channel 1 and a secondary on channel 2 and the system is running on the primary. Perhaps I am confused on my ideas of RAID 1 but I was under the impression that either drive could fail and the system keep going. Am I wrong? If I am not does anyone have any ideas? If I reboot after the drive on channel 1 fails I can recover and boot off the drive on channel 2. However, the Promise S150 BIOS throws up an error message about the drive failure that requires manual intervention before boot can proceed. There does not appear to be any way around that. This, IMIHO, is brain dead and makes the controller useless for any remote operation. If this is SOP for Promise then can someone suggest a SATA RAID controller that behaves in a more sane manner? -- Tom Glover