Contributed by dwc on from the disciplinary dept.
Johan M:son Lindman writes:
Marco Peereboom (marco@) has committed RAID0 support to softraid(4). This means that softraid is now capable of doing RAID0 and RAID1. As always when a new feature is committed it is greatly appreciated if users test the code. One way of doing so is to use the tool iogen which is available through ports or packages.
So please update your system to current and help test RAID0.
Marco has published a todo-list for softraid in order to emphasize on the yet missing features. This way you have the possibility to help develop missing features.
The following is an example of what a large RAID0 array can look like:
sd19 at scsibus5 targ 0 lun 0:SCSI20/direct fixed sd19: 2622604MB, 41219 cyl, 511 head, 255 sec, 512 bytes/sec, 5371093223 sec total # df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Capacity Mounted on /dev/sd0a 1008M 46.0M 912M 5% / /dev/sd0e 1008M 6.0K 958M 0% /tmp /dev/sd0d 3.9G 497M 3.3G 13% /usr /dev/sd0f 2.0G 6.5M 1.9G 0% /var /dev/sd19a 2.4T 1.3T 976G 59% /mnt # bioctl -h sd19 Volume Status Size Device softraid0 1 Online 2.5T sd19 RAID0 0 Online 279G 1:0.0 noencl 1 Online 279G 1:1.0 noencl 2 Online 279G 1:2.0 noencl 3 Online 279G 1:3.0 noencl 4 Online 279G 1:4.0 noencl 5 Online 279G 1:5.0 noencl 6 Online 279G 1:6.0 noencl 7 Online 279G 1:7.0 noencl 8 Online 233G 1:8.0 noencl 9 Online 233G 1:9.0 noencl
(Comments are closed)
By Brian (65.117.234.99) on
Comments
By Lennie (82.75.29.106) leen@wirehub.nl on
Raid 0 is not mirroring, it's striping. So I have my doubts.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (12.109.229.8) on
>
> Raid 0 is not mirroring, it's striping. So I have my doubts.
>
From the post above:
"This means that softraid is now capable of doing RAID0 and RAID1."
That says RAID1 too, so I think the question is still relevant.
And great work! Can't wait to test it and get rid of RAIDFRAME!
By e4ea (82.95.251.82) on
>
I have read the man page and this thread, but for me it is still not clear what is ment by striping.
Could someone explain in a few lines what is ment by striping and what the functionality of RAID0 is?
Thanks,
Jan
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (76.250.126.209) on
Comments
By e4ea (82.95.251.82) on
Thanks, this was very helpfull ;-)
By Brian (68.184.94.19) on
>
> Raid 0 is not mirroring, it's striping. So I have my doubts.
>
Yes, I was referring to softraid in general, with its RAID 1 support, not the RAID 0.
By Martin Toft (130.225.243.84) mt@martintoft.dk on
I have no problem mirroring my root partition using raidframe. You just need a small partition outside your raid with the second-stage boot program and the kernel:
$ mount | grep wd0a
/dev/wd0a on /mnt type ffs (local)
$ ls -l
total 13048
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 43060 Oct 24 22:33 boot
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 6617017 Nov 2 23:33 bsd*
Remember to have an equivalent partition on your other disk, i.e. /dev/wd1a. These two partitions must be kept in sync manually. Use /usr/mdec/installboot to make the disks bootable (see installboot(8)). You will need to configure your raid with "raidctl -A root" to make it auto-configurable and eligible to contain the root partition (see raidctl(8)). Good luck! :-)
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (76.250.126.209) on
By Brad (2001:4978:104:3:216:41ff:fe17:6933) brad at comstyle dot com on
RAIDframe will be removed in good time.
Comments
By Frank DENIS (82.224.188.215) on http://00f.net
>
> RAIDframe will be removed in good time.
What does it mean for raidframe users? Will softraid be a drop-in replacement?
Comments
By henning (213.39.134.237) on
> >
> > RAIDframe will be removed in good time.
>
> What does it mean for raidframe users? Will softraid be a drop-in replacement?
no.
you know, there is a reason raidframe was never enabled in generic...
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (85.179.82.25) on
> > >
> > > RAIDframe will be removed in good time.
> >
> > What does it mean for raidframe users? Will softraid be a drop-in replacement?
>
> no.
> you know, there is a reason raidframe was never enabled in generic...
Lack of space?!
Seriously: I personly don't know why it wasn't enabled but if you tell me that softraid works better (quicker?) and is even smaler I'll be happy anyway.
But why was raidframe never enabled by default? (no bitching, I realy don't know this)
Comments
By tedu (204.14.154.18) on
> But why was raidframe never enabled by default? (no bitching, I realy don't know this)
because nobody wanted to really have to support it.
By Anonymous Coward (76.250.126.209) on
By Anonymous Coward (76.10.142.67) on
>
> Lack of space?!
>
> Seriously: I personly don't know why it wasn't enabled but if you tell me that softraid works better (quicker?) and is even smaler I'll be happy anyway.
>
> But why was raidframe never enabled by default? (no bitching, I realy don't know this)
IIRC, there also was a licensing issue about redistributing any kernel that had raidframe enabled.
By Igor Sobrado (156.35.192.2) sobrado@ on
If you just want to back up your root partition, an alternative approach (perhaps more simple) may be making an /altroot filesystem of the same size as root, mount it "xx" in /etc/fstab and set ROOTBACKUP to 1. Look for the ROOTBACKUP string in /etc/daily if you are interested in details.
Cheers,
Igor.
By Anonymous Coward (24.37.242.64) on
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see things like this in OpenBSD, looks very good so far.
By Bayu Krisna (202.152.172.3) krisna@versalite.com on http://www.InfoBSD.org
Look at what OpenBSD Developer do, they doing something and walking to OpenEnterprise Solution.
Nice..
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (78.32.64.213) on
>
> Look at what OpenBSD Developer do, they doing something and walking to OpenEnterprise Solution.
>
> Nice..
What?