Contributed by paul on from the department-of-redundancy-in-software dept.
Update (Sat Jul 12 2008, 18:13:00 CEST): As pointed out by Lawrence Teo (thanks!) Marco has posted a new version of the diff here.
Marco explains the diff:
This is a full rewrite of the metadata code. This change does several things:
1. Eliminate bad checksums being caused by power failures or crashes
2. Unravel metadata code so that we can support multiple formats
3. Clean up name space
4. Merge thib's (thib@) pool diff
The missing portion right now is autoassemble. I'll work on that when this is in good enough shape to go in.
Even though I am not aware of any bugs at this point I suspect that something silly might have snuck in.
So please give it a twirl and let me know how it goes.
Please note: previous versions of metadata are not supported going forward; please back up your data before updating.
The Diff can be found at http://code.freedaemon.com/diffs/metadatarewrite.diff
Thanks to Marco for his continued contributions to OpenBSD. After you have completed the testing, feel free to show your appreciation by making a donation and asking your employers to help too(Comments are closed)
By Lawrence Teo (lteo) lteo.openbsd1 ! calyptix.com on http://labs.calyptix.com/
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=121641778413392&w=2
Comments
By sthen (2a01:348:108:155:216:41ff:fe53:6a45) on
>
>
>
it's in the tree now. people already using softraid who upgrade will need to dump+restore.
By foo (88.90.37.49) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (2a01:348:108:155:216:41ff:fe53:6a45) on
> 46252 total
>
> $ wc -l /usr/src/sys/dev/softraid*.[ch]
> 4877 total
You miss something here: softraid presents as a SCSI device, which means it can make use of existing well-tested code in the SCSI layer which raidframe cannot.
> Not exactly comparable yet with regards to features, but this is definitely a good start.
If you just want to mirror your disks (and even though raidframe is a whole framework for RAID prototyping, I'm pretty sure the most common reason people want it is so they can mirror their disks), you don't need a whole stack of features. I think there are only really a couple of useful features missing (scrub/rebuild, though you can manually rebuild with "dd", and assembly of a partial RAID set), and you can see that the metadata has to be fixed first.
softraid already has a few things raidframe doesn't: crypto support, it's in GENERIC, and (this makes it a lot easier to use), it's in bsd.rd for many arch.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (76.250.126.209) on
That's not accurate. RaidFrame presents itself as a block device which uses the same well tested code. softraid just sits lower in the stack because I believe it is a more natural fit.
/marco