Richard Rauch writes:
[snip]
> > Where was the start of the newfs'ed partition?  I.e. did it start at 
> > block 0 or block 63 or ??? in the disklabel?  If it didn't start at a 
> 
> No.  I originally had it at 63, but ccd complained about it when
> I configured.  Looking around, I saw something about a *cylinder* of
> reserved space, and the NetBSD (well, disklabel) concept of a cylinder
> for that disk seemed to be 1008 blocks.  So I reserved 1008 blocks, but
> either that still wasn't enough or my arithmetic was off, since I
> still got complaints.  So I went with 1648, which was generous and
> lopped off the lower 4 digits of the disk's size.  (^&  This made
> the warnings go away.  (I think that I asked about this, or at
> least mentioned it, in my initial post.  It's been mentioned before.)
> 
> Then when I went to try vinum (missing/unconfigured device,
> even after building a kernel with vinum support), and RAID, I left
> the disklabels alone (1648 offsets).

Just a sec... the disklabel on wd1/wd2 or the disklabel on raid0/ccd0?
It's the disklabel on raid0 that I care most about - the labels on 
wd1/wd2 don't matter. :) 

> Should I tell disklabel to use a different cylinder size?  Or
> should I have ignored ccd's complaints?

The disklabels on wd1/wd2 don't matter.  For performance, however, 
the disklabel on raid0 (and ccd0) will matter...  Whatever partition 
you are going to use (e.g. raid0a) should be stripe-aligned.  (In the 
case of RAID 0, you can probably just make it stripe-width-aligned).

> Or should/can I just tell raidctl to use /dev/wd1 as a whole?

No.. whatever you have with wd1 is fine for RAIDframe.

> > multiple of the stripe width (64), then move it to 0 or a multiple of 
> > the stripe width.
> 
> I'll try that.  (^&
> 
> 
>  [...]
> > If you're going to be limited by network, "make it as fast as you can 
> > without too much effort", and then not worry about it :)
> 
> Yeah.  I have been going along that track, and thinking that I've
> about exceeded my budget for effort on this.  But I'm willing to
> play a little more before I stop.

I don't think I've met a RAID set where I *havn't* exceeded my budget 
on "tuning effort"... but mostly cause it's fun :)
 
> Thanks for the advice and help.

No problem.

Later...

Greg Oster