Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 21:07:52 +0200 From: Harald Schmalzbauer <h@schmalzbauer.de> To: gabriel_ambuehl@buz.ch Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Whay is broken ATARAID that ignored? Message-ID: <200407122107.58594@harryhomeworkstation> In-Reply-To: <276240457.20040712192223@buz.ch> References: <200407120229.48866@harryhomeworkstation> <200407121909.09517@harryhomeworkstation> <276240457.20040712192223@buz.ch>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Boundary-02=_OGu8Ao+dSVDmp+k Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Am Montag, 12. Juli 2004 19:22 schrieb Gabriel Ambuehl: > Hello Harald, > > Monday, July 12, 2004, 7:09:03 PM, you wrote: > > But only if you replace the drive or null-out the first sectors. If the > > drive comes back after a reboot (the same drive) then you end up having > > two raid arrays. > > That's not what I call a working raid support! Hello Gabriel, > > For all I know that's actually a bug in the controller firmware (there > are a few weirdnesses in HPT controllers, actually, mine sometimes > won't boot after detecting a supposedly degraded array which is > usually not even broken). It's not a controller bug since with the HighPoint driver that doesn't happ= en. > > >> It IS supported (in stable, anyhow, can't comment about recent > >> CURRENT). > > > > No, if you create a raid array with the controllers BIOS FreeBSD doesn't > > care about. > > With Highpoint and Promise it definitely does. I just installed STABLE on > two different machines. Now Silicon Image is another matter but I > wouldn't bet 1 cent on that crap. Right, and that's the reason why I think it should be removed from the man= =20 page or at least include a big warning that this controller doesn't work fo= r=20 raid1 arrays. The Promise over all is well supported, I couldn't produce a sezenario wher= e=20 rebuild failed. The HPT bios-generated array also is detected, that's corre= ct=20 but I talked about the Silicon Image. > > > Also of you Shutdown the machine, power on the machine, modify files, > > power down, reconnect the drive and power up again FreeBSD (and the > > controller) > > Controller's bug. How would FreeBSD know about that? Now of course the > controller should know better but those "software" RAID controllers are > about as dumb as it gets. Again, it doesn't matter why it fails to do it's job, if it can't it should= =20 not be listed as working in the man page. > [...] > > but that's not a reason to list > > controllers as working when they are not. > > Not to mention the completely broken ataraid in -current. > > As for CURRENT, I've stopped caring for it (I lack the time). It's > broken in so many places and won't be fit for production a long time. I really wonder why nobody cares about. One can replace almost everything which is not well supported but not the=20 storage. Best regards, =2DHarry P.S. I'm running a raid5 with the 3ware on a 5.2-current snapshot without a= ny=20 problems. You can see=20 http://www.schmalzbauer.de/articles.php?mode=3Dcomments&id=3D3 for more inf= o=20 (it's gune) > > > > Best regards, > Gabriel --Boundary-02=_OGu8Ao+dSVDmp+k Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBA8uGOBylq0S4AzzwRAnPoAJ44IC/Wn28hyG1zjnDUc/fSEDEpWgCfSQ7R NOW/jh5BeDlW5GY+gZ4HlTY= =HbqA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_OGu8Ao+dSVDmp+k--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200407122107.58594>