Sergey Kandaurov wrote:
> On 6 May 2011 12:33, Alexander Motin wrote:
>> Sergey Kandaurov wrote:
>>> XENHVM uses it's own naming scheme and can name disks as daN or adN,
>>> depending on virtual block device id. atapci0/ata0/ata1 devices still
>>> present
>>> there (such as in Bruce Cran's dmesg)
On 6 May 2011 12:33, Alexander Motin wrote:
> Sergey Kandaurov wrote:
>> XENHVM uses it's own naming scheme and can name disks as daN or adN,
>> depending on virtual block device id. atapci0/ata0/ata1 devices still present
>> there (such as in Bruce Cran's dmesg), but no any disks attached from it
Sergey Kandaurov wrote:
> XENHVM uses it's own naming scheme and can name disks as daN or adN,
> depending on virtual block device id. atapci0/ata0/ata1 devices still present
> there (such as in Bruce Cran's dmesg), but no any disks attached from it:
> instead, all of them hung from device/vbd/N.
>
2011/4/20 Alexander Motin :
> Hi.
>
> With 9.0 release approaching quickly, I believe it the best time now to
> manage migration from legacy ata(4) ATA to the new CAM-based one. New
> ATA code present in the tree for more then a year now, used by many
> people and proved it's superior functionality
Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2011/4/25 Alexander Motin :
>> Kostik Belousov wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 03:26:02PM +0300, Alexander Motin wrote:
Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
> On 25.04.2011 14:23, Alexander Motin wrote:
>> What will not work:
>> - old device names won't be
Hi,
2011/4/25 Alexander Motin :
> Kostik Belousov wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 03:26:02PM +0300, Alexander Motin wrote:
>>> Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
On 25.04.2011 14:23, Alexander Motin wrote:
> What will not work:
> - old device names won't be seen inside GEOM, so users who har
Kostik Belousov wrote:
> [Cc: list trimmed]
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 05:38:11PM +0300, Alexander Motin wrote:
>> Kostik Belousov wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 03:26:02PM +0300, Alexander Motin wrote:
Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
> On 25.04.2011 14:23, Alexander Motin wrote:
>> Wha
[Cc: list trimmed]
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 05:38:11PM +0300, Alexander Motin wrote:
> Kostik Belousov wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 03:26:02PM +0300, Alexander Motin wrote:
> >> Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
> >>> On 25.04.2011 14:23, Alexander Motin wrote:
> What will not work:
> - old
Kostik Belousov wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 03:26:02PM +0300, Alexander Motin wrote:
>> Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
>>> On 25.04.2011 14:23, Alexander Motin wrote:
What will not work:
- old device names won't be seen inside GEOM, so users who hardcoded
provider names in gmirror/gs
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 03:26:02PM +0300, Alexander Motin wrote:
> Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
> > On 25.04.2011 14:23, Alexander Motin wrote:
> >> What will not work:
> >> - old device names won't be seen inside GEOM, so users who hardcoded
> >> provider names in gmirror/gstripe/... metadata (not th
Marius Strobl wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 01:23:37PM +0300, Alexander Motin wrote:
>> I've implemented following patch to keep basic compatibility for the
>> migrating users. I don't like such hacky things, but at least I tried to
>> make it less invasive.
>>
>> The idea:
>> - New xpt_path_le
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:57:47 +0300, Alexander Motin wrote:
AM> If somebody has any problems with new ATA stack, please repeat your
AM> tests with latest HEAD code and contact me if problem is still there.
AM> Next three weeks before BSDCan I am going to dedicate to fixing possibly
AM> remaining iss
Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
> On 25.04.2011 14:23, Alexander Motin wrote:
>> What will not work:
>> - old device names won't be seen inside GEOM, so users who hardcoded
>> provider names in gmirror/gstripe/... metadata (not the default
>> behavior) are still in trouble.
>> - patch mimics ATA_STATIC_
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 01:23:37PM +0300, Alexander Motin wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I've implemented following patch to keep basic compatibility for the
> migrating users. I don't like such hacky things, but at least I tried to
> make it less invasive.
>
> The idea:
> - New xpt_path_legacy_ata_id() funct
On 25.04.2011 14:23, Alexander Motin wrote:
> What will not work:
> - old device names won't be seen inside GEOM, so users who hardcoded
> provider names in gmirror/gstripe/... metadata (not the default
> behavior) are still in trouble.
> - patch mimics ATA_STATIC_ID behavior, if user had custom
Hi.
I've implemented following patch to keep basic compatibility for the
migrating users. I don't like such hacky things, but at least I tried to
make it less invasive.
The idea:
- New xpt_path_legacy_ata_id() function in CAM tries to predict bus
unit number and then device unit number for speci
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Bjoern A. Zeeb
wrote:
> [...]
>
> I agree that we need to catch up with something but we should have done so a
> year ago.
>
> a) we MUST HAVE a transition scheme if we cam-base ATA by default. Something
> that converts things automatically to whatever? Tha
Hi,
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 5:04 AM, Alexander Motin wrote:
> Patch committed. Welcome to the new world! :)
>
What transition plan do you provide ? Drop in single-user-mode and fix
/etc/fstab ? Forbid anybody without ATA_CAM in their 8.x config to be
able to switch between 8 and 9 ?
Thanks,
- A
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Scott Long wrote:
> Indeed, there's nothing wrong with preserving access to the system details
> for the use of administration, troubleshooting, and even mere geeky
> knowledge. This isn't about taking power away from the superusers, it's
> about making the syste
On Apr 23, 2011, at 10:36 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
>> In other words, "ada" isn't the problem here, it's that we all still think
>> in terms of the 1980's when systems didn't autoconfigure and device names
>> were important hints to system functionality. That time has thankfully
>> passed,
On 21.04.2011 13:26, Alexander Motin wrote:
Marius Strobl wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:57:47PM +0300, Alexander Motin wrote:
With 9.0 release approaching quickly, I believe it the best time now to
manage migration from legacy ata(4) ATA to the new CAM-based one. New
ATA code present in the
> In other words, "ada" isn't the problem here, it's that we all still think in
> terms of the 1980's when systems didn't autoconfigure and device names were
> important hints to system functionality. That time has thankfully passed,
> and it's time for us to catch up.
If this is important for
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
Although this may not be a list of fixable issues, here are some observations
(in part with the new geom raid infrastructure):
1. Channels are no longer fixed of course because ata uses cam
On Apr 21, 2011, at 10:48 AM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> Although this may not be a list of fixable issues, here are some
>> observations (in part with the new geom raid infrastructure):
>> 1. Channels are no longer fixed of course
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 01:26:25PM +0300, Alexander Motin wrote:
> Marius Strobl wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:57:47PM +0300, Alexander Motin wrote:
> >> With 9.0 release approaching quickly, I believe it the best time now to
> >> manage migration from legacy ata(4) ATA to the new CAM-based
> Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 01:37:14 -0400
> From: Arnaud Lacombe
> Sender: owner-freebsd-curr...@freebsd.org
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Warren Block wro
Hello, Warren.
You wrote 21 апреля 2011 г., 3:01:59:
> Not sure I understand the question. I have a little article called
> FreeBSD Labeled Filesystems:
> http://www.wonkity.com/~wblock/docs/html/labels.html
This article says nothing about what should I do when gmirror tastes
after glabel (and
Hello, Ted.
You wrote 21 апреля 2011 г., 20:18:15:
>> When I first saw this on linux my gut reaction was "e,
>> different." But now that I've worked with it a bit, I really like
>> it. Doing this by default in 9.0 would be a really useful step
>> forward, and would allow greater innovation dow
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> Although this may not be a list of fixable issues, here are some observations
> (in part with the new geom raid infrastructure):
> 1. Channels are no longer fixed of course because ata uses cam now, and I
> believe that device numberi
On Apr 20, 2011, at 2:57 AM, Alexander Motin wrote:
> Hi.
>
> With 9.0 release approaching quickly, I believe it the best time now to
> manage migration from legacy ata(4) ATA to the new CAM-based one. New
> ATA code present in the tree for more then a year now, used by many
> people and proved
I also think that labeling disks & partitions should be the default approach
on new installations.
I wonder why the new bsdinstaller does not adopt this policy yet. It is
practical, easy and saves a lot of hassles when it comes to disk
replacements.
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Ted Faber wrot
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Ted Faber wrote:
> I seem to recall some flakiness with mounting labelled gmirrors. Anyone
> know if that's been resolved?
Purely anecdotal, but we've been using gmirror on top of glabel since
FreeBSD 7.0. First on CompactFlash disks using CF-to-IDE adapters
(at
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 03:35:38PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 04/20/2011 15:18, Scott Long wrote:
> >I agree with what Alexander is saying, but I'd like to take it a step
> >further. We should all be using [...] mount-by-label
>
> +1
>
> When I first saw this on linux my gut reaction was "e
On 04/21/11 02:51, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
On Apr 20, 2011, at 10:18 PM, Scott Long wrote:
On Apr 20, 2011, at 2:50 PM, Alexander Motin wrote:
Ulrich Spörlein wrote:
[...]
b) FYI: labels and stacked geoms do not work well together as you can
never detach providers cleanly then, which basical
> Daniel Braniss wrote:
> >> Bruce Cran wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:57:47 +0300
> >>> Alexander Motin wrote:
> >>>
> If somebody has any problems with new ATA stack, please repeat your
> tests with latest HEAD code and contact me if problem is still there.
> Next three weeks
On 04/20/2011 05:57, Alexander Motin wrote:
Hi.
With 9.0 release approaching quickly, I believe it the best time now to
manage migration from legacy ata(4) ATA to the new CAM-based one. New
ATA code present in the tree for more then a year now, used by many
people and proved it's superior functi
My mistake! Everything back to normal thanks and very nice work.
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Alexander Motin wrote:
> George Kontostanos wrote:
> > First patch seemed to work fine.
> >
> > Second however,
>
> It was unrelated breakage related to WiFi MIMO support. Already fixed.
>
> --
> Al
George Kontostanos wrote:
> First patch seemed to work fine.
>
> Second however,
It was unrelated breakage related to WiFi MIMO support. Already fixed.
--
Alexander Motin
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/li
First patch seemed to work fine.
Second however,
===> mwl (all)
cc -O2 -pipe -fno-strict-aliasing -Werror -D_KERNEL -DKLD_MODULE -nostdinc
-DHAVE_KERNEL_OPTION_HEADERS -include
/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC/opt_global.h -I. -I@ -I@/contrib/altq
-finline-limit=8000 --param inline-unit-growth=100 --
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 04:35:58PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Scott Long wrote:
> >...
> >
> >I agree with what Alexander is saying, but I'd like to take it a step
> >further. We should all be using either mount-by-label, or be working to
> >introduce generic device
Daniel Braniss wrote:
>> Bruce Cran wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:57:47 +0300
>>> Alexander Motin wrote:
>>>
If somebody has any problems with new ATA stack, please repeat your
tests with latest HEAD code and contact me if problem is still there.
Next three weeks before BSDCan I
Marius Strobl wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:57:47PM +0300, Alexander Motin wrote:
>> With 9.0 release approaching quickly, I believe it the best time now to
>> manage migration from legacy ata(4) ATA to the new CAM-based one. New
>> ATA code present in the tree for more then a year now, used
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 07:51:56 +
"Bjoern A. Zeeb" wrote:
> a) we MUST HAVE a transition scheme if we cam-base ATA by default.
> Something that converts things automatically to whatever? That's not
> been done in more than one year. It's not acceptable to update,
> reboot and not find the root
On Apr 20, 2011, at 10:18 PM, Scott Long wrote:
> On Apr 20, 2011, at 2:50 PM, Alexander Motin wrote:
>> Ulrich Spörlein wrote:
>>> Can we then please get the "ad" device prefix back? I seem to remember
>>> that when they were introduced they were thought to be a temporary thing
>>> ...
>>>
>>> U
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Warren Block wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>>
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Garrett Cooper
wrote:
>>
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:30:33PM -0400, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Scott Long wrote:
>
>> On Apr 20, 2011, at 2:50 PM, Alexander Motin wrote:
>> > Ulrich Spörlein wrote:
>> >> Can we then please get the "ad" device prefix back? I seem to remember
>> >> that wh
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Warren Block wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> On 04/20/2011 15:18, Scott Long wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with what Alexander is saying, but I'd like to take it a step
>>> further. We should all be using [...] mount-by-label
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> When
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 04/20/2011 15:18, Scott Long wrote:
>
>> I agree with what Alexander is saying, but I'd like to take it a step
>> further. We should all be using [...] mount-by-label
>>
>
> +1
>
> When I first saw this on linux my gut reaction was "e,
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Scott Long wrote:
> On Apr 20, 2011, at 2:50 PM, Alexander Motin wrote:
> > Ulrich Spörlein wrote:
> >> Can we then please get the "ad" device prefix back? I seem to remember
> >> that when they were introduced they were thought to be a temporary thing
> >> ...
>
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Warren Block wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Garrett Cooper
wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
glabel create /dev/
Just tested t
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Warren Block wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Garrett Cooper
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>>>
>>> glabel create /dev/
>>
>> Just tested that with a kernel from
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
glabel create /dev/
Just tested that with a kernel from HEAD and a 8.x userland. This does
not seem to survive a reboot.
No, "create" make
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Doug Barton wrote:
On 04/20/2011 16:01, Warren Block wrote:
Not sure I understand the question. I have a little article called
FreeBSD Labeled Filesystems:
http://www.wonkity.com/~wblock/docs/html/labels.html
That's a good article, but it highlights what seem to be some
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 04/20/2011 15:18, Scott Long wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree with what Alexander is saying, but I'd like to take it a step
>>> further. We should all be using [...] mount-by-label
>>
>>
On 04/20/2011 16:01, Warren Block wrote:
Not sure I understand the question. I have a little article called
FreeBSD Labeled Filesystems:
http://www.wonkity.com/~wblock/docs/html/labels.html
That's a good article, but it highlights what seem to be some
deficiencies in the various implementatio
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
>>> now that I've worked with it a bit, I really like it. Doing this by
>>> default
>>> in 9.0 would be a really useful step forward, and would allow greater
>>> innovation down the road.
>>>
>>> Is there a handy tutorial somewhere for making
now that I've worked with it a bit, I really like it. Doing this by default
in 9.0 would be a really useful step forward, and would allow greater
innovation down the road.
Is there a handy tutorial somewhere for making this change in FreeBSD? Or is
it even possible to do in a rational way?
gl
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Scott Long wrote:
...
I agree with what Alexander is saying, but I'd like to take it a step
further. We should all be using either mount-by-label, or be working to
introduce generic device names to GEOM. Right now, device names are an
implementation detail that have n
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Doug Barton wrote:
On 04/20/2011 15:18, Scott Long wrote:
I agree with what Alexander is saying, but I'd like to take it a step
further. We should all be using [...] mount-by-label
+1
When I first saw this on linux my gut reaction was "e, different." But
now that I
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 04/20/2011 15:18, Scott Long wrote:
>>
>> I agree with what Alexander is saying, but I'd like to take it a step
>> further. We should all be using [...] mount-by-label
>
> +1
>
> When I first saw this on linux my gut reaction was "e, di
On 04/20/2011 15:18, Scott Long wrote:
I agree with what Alexander is saying, but I'd like to take it a step further.
We should all be using [...] mount-by-label
+1
When I first saw this on linux my gut reaction was "e, different."
But now that I've worked with it a bit, I really like i
On Apr 20, 2011, at 2:50 PM, Alexander Motin wrote:
> Ulrich Spörlein wrote:
>> Can we then please get the "ad" device prefix back? I seem to remember
>> that when they were introduced they were thought to be a temporary thing
>> ...
>>
>> Unless both stacks can run in parallel, I don't see a prob
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 00:17:44 +0300
Alexander Motin wrote:
> 2 Bruce: Looking on XEN sources, it seems that the only place how it
> differs missing and present disk is the device signature. ata(4) at
> this moment doesn't checks signature if it is not ATAPI and READY bit
> is set. Attached patch s
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:54:52 +0300
Alexander Motin wrote:
> Could you show me verbose dmesg with
> legacy ATA to make sure? Same time I'll try to think what can we do
> about it.
You're right - with the verbose dmesg with ata(4) there are lines:
unknown: FAILURE - ATA_IDENTIFY timed out LBA=0
Alexander Motin wrote:
> Bruce Cran wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:21:48 +0300
>> Alexander Motin wrote:
>>
>>> Verbose dmesg from the fresh system would be appreciated.
>> I've put a verbose dmesg at
>> http://www.cran.org.uk/~brucec/freebsd/dmesg.verbose_20110420.txt
>
> Thank you. I've compa
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:57:47PM +0300, Alexander Motin wrote:
> Hi.
>
> With 9.0 release approaching quickly, I believe it the best time now to
> manage migration from legacy ata(4) ATA to the new CAM-based one. New
> ATA code present in the tree for more then a year now, used by many
> people
Ulrich Spörlein wrote:
> Can we then please get the "ad" device prefix back? I seem to remember
> that when they were introduced they were thought to be a temporary thing
> ...
>
> Unless both stacks can run in parallel, I don't see a problem with
> having them both show up as /dev/ad0, etc. Peopl
On Wed, 20.04.2011 at 12:57:47 +0300, Alexander Motin wrote:
> Hi.
>
> With 9.0 release approaching quickly, I believe it the best time now to
> manage migration from legacy ata(4) ATA to the new CAM-based one. New
> ATA code present in the tree for more then a year now, used by many
> people and
Bruce Cran wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:21:48 +0300
> Alexander Motin wrote:
>
>> Verbose dmesg from the fresh system would be appreciated.
>
> I've put a verbose dmesg at
> http://www.cran.org.uk/~brucec/freebsd/dmesg.verbose_20110420.txt
Thank you. I've compared your and Daniel dmesgs, and
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:21:48 +0300
Alexander Motin wrote:
> Verbose dmesg from the fresh system would be appreciated.
I've put a verbose dmesg at
http://www.cran.org.uk/~brucec/freebsd/dmesg.verbose_20110420.txt
--
Bruce Cran
___
freebsd-current@free
> Bruce Cran wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:57:47 +0300
> > Alexander Motin wrote:
> >
> >> If somebody has any problems with new ATA stack, please repeat your
> >> tests with latest HEAD code and contact me if problem is still there.
> >> Next three weeks before BSDCan I am going to dedicate
Yes, I believe that now is the time to do this.
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Bruce Cran wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:57:47 +0300
> Alexander Motin wrote:
>
>> If somebody has any problems with new ATA stack, please repeat your
>> tests with latest HEAD code and contact me if problem is still there.
>> Next three weeks before BSDCan I am going to dedicate to fixing
>> p
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:57:47 +0300
Alexander Motin wrote:
> If somebody has any problems with new ATA stack, please repeat your
> tests with latest HEAD code and contact me if problem is still there.
> Next three weeks before BSDCan I am going to dedicate to fixing
> possibly remaining issues.
I
Hi.
With 9.0 release approaching quickly, I believe it the best time now to
manage migration from legacy ata(4) ATA to the new CAM-based one. New
ATA code present in the tree for more then a year now, used by many
people and proved it's superior functionality and reliability. The only
major issue
75 matches
Mail list logo
