Re: RaidFrame errors

[William Ross <williamrossmbsw%gmail.com@localhost>]

On 3 June 2013 16:35, Greg Oster <oster%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
> raid0 is a RAID 1 set, yes?

Thats right.

>> At that point the / raid1 was running on wd0 and wd1 and had the
>
> By this you mean a RAID 1 set for / ?

Yes, the device /dev/raid0 which is a RAID 1 set and is mounted on /.

> If I had to guess, I'd bet that at some point a component label didn't
> get written to wd0 for the RAID 5 set, and that caused it to be marked
> as 'failed' on a subsequent boot.

That sounds right. When I build the RAID 5 set originally I built it
with wd1, wd2 and wd3 (using wd0 to bootstrap it) and then added wd0
in after it was working. So it looks like I didn't reboot and check
the array was working properly after adding wd0 to it. Not good.

>> My reading of the situation is that raidframe in incorrectly failing
>> the part of the raid5 on wd0 due to read errors on wd1.
>
> No.... wd0 had failed before, and hadn't been in use.  For how long, I
> have no idea, but my guess would be for at least a few reboots.  Read
> errors on wd1 are causing issues with getting wd0 to rebuild.
>
> ...
>
> Good luck!
>
> Later...
>
> Greg Oster

Thank you Greg, it makes a lot more sense to me now.

Will