On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 10:11:15AM -0600, Greg Oster wrote:
> Richard Rauch writes:
 [...]
> > 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. :) 

Oh.  raid0a is offset at 0, and uses the whole volume.  That was
the default.

For ccd, it was probably whatever the default was after I ran
ccdconfig.  I don't remember fiddling with the bounds, and didn't
think it necessary to make any notes about that.  I'm pretty sure
if I'd twiddled those parameters, I would have noted it.


> > 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 :)

(^&

-- 
  "I probably don't know what I'm talking about."  http://www.olib.org/~rkr/