Professional Web Applications Themes

Annoying ports problem - FreeBSD

Hi list, I have run into an annoying problem several times when upgrading ports. Say, if i want to upgrade gstreamer-plugins, i do: # cd /usr/ports/multimedia/gstreamer-plugins # make This pulls in some dependencies, for example gnomevfs2. gnnomevfs2 will compile fine, but then stops because it wants to install gnomevfs2 instead of reinstalling it: ===> An older version of devel/gnomevfs2 is already installed (gnomevfs2-2.9.91) You may wish to ``make deinstall'' and install this port again by ``make reinstall'' to upgrade it properly. If you really wish to overwrite the old port of devel/gnomevfs2 without deleting it first, set the variable "FORCE_PKG_REGISTER" ...

  1. #1

    Default Annoying ports problem

    Hi list,

    I have run into an annoying problem several times when upgrading ports.

    Say, if i want to upgrade gstreamer-plugins, i do:

    # cd /usr/ports/multimedia/gstreamer-plugins
    # make

    This pulls in some dependencies, for example gnomevfs2. gnnomevfs2 will
    compile fine, but then stops because it wants to install gnomevfs2
    instead of reinstalling it:

    ===> An older version of devel/gnomevfs2 is already installed
    (gnomevfs2-2.9.91)
    You may wish to ``make deinstall'' and install this port again
    by ``make reinstall'' to upgrade it properly.
    If you really wish to overwrite the old port of devel/gnomevfs2
    without deleting it first, set the variable "FORCE_PKG_REGISTER"
    in your environment or the "make install" command line.
    *** Error code 1

    Since i have run into this several times, i must be missing something
    substantial. What is it?

    Regards,
    --

    Heinrich Rebehn

    University of Bremen
    Physics / Electrical and Electronics Engineering
    - Department of Telecommunications -

    Phone : +49/421/218-4664
    Fax : -3341
    Heinrich Rebehn Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Annoying ports problem

    you're in the wrong way... to update all your ports you must use portupgrade
    from ports, but if you are sure what u'r doing simply add
    FORCE_PKG_REGISTER=yes in your /etc/make.conf but after time you could have
    some trouble in your PKGDB

    bye Davide

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Heinrich Rebehn" <rebehnant.uni-bremen.de>
    To: <freebsd-questionsfreebsd.org>
    Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 10:45 AM
    Subject: Annoying ports problem

    > Hi list,
    >
    > I have run into an annoying problem several times when upgrading ports.
    >
    > Say, if i want to upgrade gstreamer-plugins, i do:
    >
    > # cd /usr/ports/multimedia/gstreamer-plugins
    > # make
    >
    > This pulls in some dependencies, for example gnomevfs2. gnnomevfs2 will
    > compile fine, but then stops because it wants to install gnomevfs2 instead
    > of reinstalling it:
    >
    > ===> An older version of devel/gnomevfs2 is already installed
    > (gnomevfs2-2.9.91)
    > You may wish to ``make deinstall'' and install this port again
    > by ``make reinstall'' to upgrade it properly.
    > If you really wish to overwrite the old port of devel/gnomevfs2
    > without deleting it first, set the variable "FORCE_PKG_REGISTER"
    > in your environment or the "make install" command line.
    > *** Error code 1
    >
    > Since i have run into this several times, i must be missing something
    > substantial. What is it?
    >
    > Regards,
    > --
    >
    > Heinrich Rebehn
    >
    > University of Bremen
    > Physics / Electrical and Electronics Engineering
    > - Department of Telecommunications -
    >
    > Phone : +49/421/218-4664
    > Fax : -3341
    > _______________________________________________
    > [email]freebsd-questionsfreebsd.org[/email] mailing list
    > [url]http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions[/url]
    > To unsubscribe, send any mail to
    > "freebsd-questions-unsubscribefreebsd.org"
    >
    Davide Lemma Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Annoying ports problem

    On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 10:45:36 +0100, Heinrich Rebehn
    <rebehnant.uni-bremen.de> wrote:
    > Hi list,
    >
    > I have run into an annoying problem several times when upgrading ports.
    >
    > Say, if i want to upgrade gstreamer-plugins, i do:
    >
    > # cd /usr/ports/multimedia/gstreamer-plugins
    > # make
    >
    > This pulls in some dependencies, for example gnomevfs2. gnnomevfs2 will
    > compile fine, but then stops because it wants to install gnomevfs2
    > instead of reinstalling it:
    >
    > ===> An older version of devel/gnomevfs2 is already installed
    > (gnomevfs2-2.9.91)
    > You may wish to ``make deinstall'' and install this port again
    > by ``make reinstall'' to upgrade it properly.
    > If you really wish to overwrite the old port of devel/gnomevfs2
    > without deleting it first, set the variable "FORCE_PKG_REGISTER"
    > in your environment or the "make install" command line.
    > *** Error code 1
    >
    > Since i have run into this several times, i must be missing something
    > substantial. What is it?
    Just "make" will make the program and try to install it as if it were
    the first time. When it detects the older version, it will want you
    to do "make deinstall && make reinstall". For upgrading ports, you
    may want to look at /usr/ports/sysutils/portupgrade.


    --
    If I write a signature, my emails will appear more personalised.
    Eric Kjeldergaard Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Annoying ports problem

    Eric Kjeldergaard wrote:
    > On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 10:45:36 +0100, Heinrich Rebehn
    > <rebehnant.uni-bremen.de> wrote:
    >
    >>Hi list,
    >>
    >>I have run into an annoying problem several times when upgrading ports.
    >>
    >>Say, if i want to upgrade gstreamer-plugins, i do:
    >>
    >># cd /usr/ports/multimedia/gstreamer-plugins
    >># make
    >>
    >>This pulls in some dependencies, for example gnomevfs2. gnnomevfs2 will
    >>compile fine, but then stops because it wants to install gnomevfs2
    >>instead of reinstalling it:
    >>
    >>===> An older version of devel/gnomevfs2 is already installed
    >>(gnomevfs2-2.9.91)
    >> You may wish to ``make deinstall'' and install this port again
    >> by ``make reinstall'' to upgrade it properly.
    >> If you really wish to overwrite the old port of devel/gnomevfs2
    >> without deleting it first, set the variable "FORCE_PKG_REGISTER"
    >> in your environment or the "make install" command line.
    >>*** Error code 1
    >>
    >>Since i have run into this several times, i must be missing something
    >>substantial. What is it?
    >
    >
    > Just "make" will make the program and try to install it as if it were
    > the first time. When it detects the older version, it will want you
    > to do "make deinstall && make reinstall". For upgrading ports, you
    > may want to look at /usr/ports/sysutils/portupgrade.
    >
    >
    It makes no difference wether i use "make" or "portupgrade". As soon as
    ether of them decide that another package that the make candidate
    depends on, has to be upgraded, the error occurs with that package.

    --

    Heinrich Rebehn

    University of Bremen
    Physics / Electrical and Electronics Engineering
    - Department of Telecommunications -

    Phone : +49/421/218-4664
    Fax : -3341
    Heinrich Rebehn Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Annoying ports problem

    On Thursday 17 February 2005 11:37 pm, Heinrich Rebehn wrote:
    > Eric Kjeldergaard wrote:
    > > On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 10:45:36 +0100, Heinrich Rebehn
    > >
    > > <rebehnant.uni-bremen.de> wrote:
    > >>Hi list,
    > >>
    > >>I have run into an annoying problem several times when upgrading
    > >> ports.
    > >>
    > >>Say, if i want to upgrade gstreamer-plugins, i do:
    > >>
    > >># cd /usr/ports/multimedia/gstreamer-plugins
    > >># make
    > >>
    > >>This pulls in some dependencies, for example gnomevfs2. gnnomevfs2
    > >> will compile fine, but then stops because it wants to install
    > >> gnomevfs2 instead of reinstalling it:
    > >>
    > >>===> An older version of devel/gnomevfs2 is already installed
    > >>(gnomevfs2-2.9.91)
    > >> You may wish to ``make deinstall'' and install this port
    > >> again by ``make reinstall'' to upgrade it properly.
    > >> If you really wish to overwrite the old port of
    > >> devel/gnomevfs2 without deleting it first, set the variable
    > >> "FORCE_PKG_REGISTER" in your environment or the "make install"
    > >> command line. *** Error code 1
    > >>
    > >>Since i have run into this several times, i must be missing
    > >> something substantial. What is it?
    > >
    > > Just "make" will make the program and try to install it as if it
    > > were the first time. When it detects the older version, it will
    > > want you to do "make deinstall && make reinstall". For upgrading
    > > ports, you may want to look at /usr/ports/sysutils/portupgrade.
    >
    > It makes no difference wether i use "make" or "portupgrade". As soon
    > as ether of them decide that another package that the make candidate
    > depends on, has to be upgraded, the error occurs with that package.
    Have you tried upgrading using sysutils/portmanager yet?

    -Mike
    Michael C. Shultz Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Annoying ports problem

    On Friday 18 February 2005 08:37, Heinrich Rebehn wrote:
    > Eric Kjeldergaard wrote:
    > > On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 10:45:36 +0100, Heinrich Rebehn
    > >
    > > <rebehnant.uni-bremen.de> wrote:
    > >>Hi list,
    > >>
    > >>I have run into an annoying problem several times when upgrading ports.
    > >>
    > >>Say, if i want to upgrade gstreamer-plugins, i do:
    > >>
    > >># cd /usr/ports/multimedia/gstreamer-plugins
    > >># make
    > >>
    > >>This pulls in some dependencies, for example gnomevfs2. gnnomevfs2 will
    > >>compile fine, but then stops because it wants to install gnomevfs2
    > >>instead of reinstalling it:
    > >>
    > >>===> An older version of devel/gnomevfs2 is already installed
    > >>(gnomevfs2-2.9.91)
    > >> You may wish to ``make deinstall'' and install this port again
    > >> by ``make reinstall'' to upgrade it properly.
    > >> If you really wish to overwrite the old port of devel/gnomevfs2
    > >> without deleting it first, set the variable "FORCE_PKG_REGISTER"
    > >> in your environment or the "make install" command line.
    > >>*** Error code 1
    > >>
    > >>Since i have run into this several times, i must be missing something
    > >>substantial. What is it?
    > >
    > > Just "make" will make the program and try to install it as if it were
    > > the first time. When it detects the older version, it will want you
    > > to do "make deinstall && make reinstall". For upgrading ports, you
    > > may want to look at /usr/ports/sysutils/portupgrade.
    >
    The problem is that the OP *is* using portupgrade.
    > It makes no difference wether i use "make" or "portupgrade". As soon as
    > ether of them decide that another package that the make candidate
    > depends on, has to be upgraded, the error occurs with that package.
    And if you do 'portupgrade -f gnomevfs2' (forced upgrade) *before*
    'portupgrade gstreamer-plugins'? It recently solved similar problems for me,
    in particular with the perl-related ports.

    Karel.
    Karel J. Bosschaart Guest

  7. #7

    Default raid1

    hi, my server hardware supports hardware raid, i installed it
    as per normal freebsd 5.3, however i see no difference
    in df. its using 2 x 160GB, what do i do during the installation
    to enable the raid?

    mobo:
    [url]http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon800/E7320/X6DVL-EG.cfm[/url]

    -bash-2.05b$ df
    Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on
    /dev/ad4s1a 66008394 35424 60692300 0% /
    devfs 1 1 0 100% /dev
    /dev/ad4s1d 66008394 24 60727700 0% /home
    /dev/ad4s1e 10154158 683442 8658384 7% /usr
    /dev/ad4s1f 8172302 982 7517536 0% /var
    -bash-2.05b$

    Spades Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: raid1


    On Feb 18, 2005, at 11:39 PM, Spades wrote:
    > hi, my server hardware supports hardware raid, i installed it
    > as per normal freebsd 5.3, however i see no difference
    > in df. its using 2 x 160GB, what do i do during the installation
    > to enable the raid?
    >
    > mobo:
    > [url]http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon800/E7320/X6DVL-[/url]
    > EG.cfm
    >
    > -bash-2.05b$ df
    > Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on
    > /dev/ad4s1a 66008394 35424 60692300 0% /
    > devfs 1 1 0 100% /dev
    > /dev/ad4s1d 66008394 24 60727700 0% /home
    > /dev/ad4s1e 10154158 683442 8658384 7% /usr
    > /dev/ad4s1f 8172302 982 7517536 0% /var
    > -bash-2.05b$
    >
    What do you expect to see?

    A raid1 is a mirror set and to the OS would probably look like a single
    drive if it truly is a HW raid

    Chad

    Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: raid1

    On Saturday 19 February 2005 00:51, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
    > On Feb 18, 2005, at 11:39 PM, Spades wrote:
    > > hi, my server hardware supports hardware raid, i installed it
    > > as per normal freebsd 5.3, however i see no difference
    > > in df. its using 2 x 160GB, what do i do during the installation
    > > to enable the raid?
    > >
    > > mobo:
    > > [url]http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon800/E7320/X6DV[/url]
    > >L- EG.cfm
    > >
    > > -bash-2.05b$ df
    > > Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on
    > > /dev/ad4s1a 66008394 35424 60692300 0% /
    > > devfs 1 1 0 100% /dev
    > > /dev/ad4s1d 66008394 24 60727700 0% /home
    > > /dev/ad4s1e 10154158 683442 8658384 7% /usr
    > > /dev/ad4s1f 8172302 982 7517536 0% /var
    > > -bash-2.05b$
    >
    > What do you expect to see?
    >
    > A raid1 is a mirror set and to the OS would probably look like a
    > single drive if it truly is a HW raid
    >
    > Chad
    The RAID will ususally show up as something other than ad(x).
    Generally you create the RAID array in the controller's BIOS and
    FreeBSD detects it as a single disk (in my case ar0). You may want
    to google around to see if your controller is supported.

    --
    Thanks,

    Josh Paetzel
    Josh Paetzel Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: raid1


    On Feb 18, 2005, at 11:56 PM, Josh Paetzel wrote:
    > On Saturday 19 February 2005 00:51, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
    >> On Feb 18, 2005, at 11:39 PM, Spades wrote:
    >>> hi, my server hardware supports hardware raid, i installed it
    >>> as per normal freebsd 5.3, however i see no difference
    >>> in df. its using 2 x 160GB, what do i do during the installation
    >>> to enable the raid?
    >>>
    >>> mobo:
    >>> [url]http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon800/E7320/X6DV[/url]
    >>> L- EG.cfm
    >>>
    >>> -bash-2.05b$ df
    >>> Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on
    >>> /dev/ad4s1a 66008394 35424 60692300 0% /
    >>> devfs 1 1 0 100% /dev
    >>> /dev/ad4s1d 66008394 24 60727700 0% /home
    >>> /dev/ad4s1e 10154158 683442 8658384 7% /usr
    >>> /dev/ad4s1f 8172302 982 7517536 0% /var
    >>> -bash-2.05b$
    >>
    >> What do you expect to see?
    >>
    >> A raid1 is a mirror set and to the OS would probably look like a
    >> single drive if it truly is a HW raid
    >>
    >> Chad
    >
    > The RAID will ususally show up as something other than ad(x).
    > Generally you create the RAID array in the controller's BIOS and
    > FreeBSD detects it as a single disk (in my case ar0). You may want
    > to google around to see if your controller is supported.
    That is generally because they are not real HW raids, AFAIK. My
    adaptec HW raid controller shows the raid arrays as daX just like a
    normal adaptec SCSI drive. No difference. (or my other adaptec ones
    show the raidsets and single drives as aacX, and my Rocket RAID 1820a
    seems to show everything as a daX)

    I won't claim to know how this really works with these pseudo HW raid
    controllers built into the MBs, but from what I read in this list,
    FreeBSD has to read the RAID config on the disks in the ata driver,
    which to me says it is not a real HW raid. If it was a true HW raid,
    FreeBSD wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a raidset and a
    single disk.

    Chad



    Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: raid1

    >>>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 23:51:53 -0700,
    >>>>> "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC" <chadshire.net> said:
    > On Feb 18, 2005, at 11:39 PM, Spades wrote:
    >> hi, my server hardware supports hardware raid, i installed it
    >> as per normal freebsd 5.3, however i see no difference
    >> in df. its using 2 x 160GB, what do i do during the installation
    >> to enable the raid?
    >>
    >> mobo:
    >> [url]http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon800/E7320/X6DVL-[/url]
    >> EG.cfm
    >>
    >> -bash-2.05b$ df
    >> Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on
    >> /dev/ad4s1a 66008394 35424 60692300 0% /
    >> devfs 1 1 0 100% /dev
    >> ...
    > What do you expect to see?
    > A raid1 is a mirror set and to the OS would probably look like a single
    > drive if it truly is a HW raid
    This should be true of any hardware RAID level, not just RAID1. The
    HW RAID presents logical drives to the OS, which look like real drives
    to it. The caveat is that the RAID driver will appear as the disk
    type. I don't have any experience with SATA RAID, but on my server,
    which has a Mylex ExtremeRAID 1100 SCSI RAID card, a df gives:

    Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on
    /dev/mlxd0s1a ...
    /dev/mlxd0s1d ...
    /dev/mlxd0s1h ...
    /dev/mlxd0s1e ...
    /dev/mlxd0s1f ...
    /dev/mlxd0s1g ...
    /dev/mlxd1s1e ...
    /dev/mlxd1s1f ...
    /dev/mlxd1s1g ...
    /dev/mlxd2s1e ...

    mlx(4) is the driver for this card. The underlying hard drive
    structure doesn't look anything like the above, but this is irrelevant
    to the OS.

    Regarding your situation, I believe that your MB uses an Adaptec SATA
    controller. You should find out exactly what the controller is and if
    it is supported in "Hardware Notes". I would expect that if your
    controller is supported and found, then "ad" should be replaced by the
    relevant driver. Also, have a look at the dmesg output. There should
    be some sign that the OS is recognizing your RAID controller.

    Sandy
    Sandy Rutherford Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: raid1


    On Feb 19, 2005, at 12:37 AM, Sandy Rutherford wrote:
    >>>>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 23:51:53 -0700,
    >>>>>> "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC" <chadshire.net> said:
    >
    >> On Feb 18, 2005, at 11:39 PM, Spades wrote:
    >
    >>> hi, my server hardware supports hardware raid, i installed it
    >>> as per normal freebsd 5.3, however i see no difference
    >>> in df. its using 2 x 160GB, what do i do during the installation
    >>> to enable the raid?
    >>>
    >>> mobo:
    >>> [url]http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon800/E7320/X6DVL-[/url]
    >>> EG.cfm
    >>>
    >>> -bash-2.05b$ df
    >>> Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on
    >>> /dev/ad4s1a 66008394 35424 60692300 0% /
    >>> devfs 1 1 0 100% /dev
    >>> ...
    >
    >> What do you expect to see?
    >
    >> A raid1 is a mirror set and to the OS would probably look like a
    >> single
    >> drive if it truly is a HW raid
    >
    > This should be true of any hardware RAID level, not just RAID1. The
    > HW RAID presents logical drives to the OS, which look like real drives
    > to it. The caveat is that the RAID driver will appear as the disk
    > type. I don't have any experience with SATA RAID, but on my server,
    > which has a Mylex ExtremeRAID 1100 SCSI RAID card, a df gives:
    >
    > Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on
    > /dev/mlxd0s1a ...
    > /dev/mlxd0s1d ...
    > /dev/mlxd0s1h ...
    > /dev/mlxd0s1e ...
    > /dev/mlxd0s1f ...
    > /dev/mlxd0s1g ...
    > /dev/mlxd1s1e ...
    > /dev/mlxd1s1f ...
    > /dev/mlxd1s1g ...
    > /dev/mlxd2s1e ...
    >
    > mlx(4) is the driver for this card. The underlying hard drive
    > structure doesn't look anything like the above, but this is irrelevant
    > to the OS.
    >
    > Regarding your situation, I believe that your MB uses an Adaptec SATA
    > controller. You should find out exactly what the controller is and if
    > it is supported in "Hardware Notes". I would expect that if your
    > controller is supported and found, then "ad" should be replaced by the
    > relevant driver. Also, have a look at the dmesg output. There should
    > be some sign that the OS is recognizing your RAID controller.
    >
    According to the MB specs at the URL given by the OP, the SATA is an
    Intel 6300ESB (part of a more general IO chip)

    " 6300ESB (Hance Rapids) SATA Controller (2x Drive support)
    2x SATA Ports
    RAID 0, 1, JBOD support"


    I don't see any specific mention of this in any of the HW notes for
    5.3. I would be interested to see the dmesg output at boot time to see
    what the system sees for devices and controllers. If it is an ATA raid
    (pseudo HW RAID) then it would show as arX devices and not adX
    according to the handbook.

    Chad

    Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: raid1

    How do we check if FreeBSD recorgnises it as individual drives or Hardware
    RAID array.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC" <chadshire.net>
    To: "Sandy Rutherford" <sandykrvarr.bc.ca>
    Cc: <freebsd-questionsfreebsd.org>; "Spades" <spadesgalaxynet.org>
    Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 5:46 PM
    Subject: Re: raid1



    On Feb 19, 2005, at 12:37 AM, Sandy Rutherford wrote:
    >>>>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 23:51:53 -0700,
    >>>>>> "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC" <chadshire.net> said:
    >
    >> On Feb 18, 2005, at 11:39 PM, Spades wrote:
    >
    >>> hi, my server hardware supports hardware raid, i installed it
    >>> as per normal freebsd 5.3, however i see no difference
    >>> in df. its using 2 x 160GB, what do i do during the installation
    >>> to enable the raid?
    >>>
    >>> mobo:
    >>> [url]http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon800/E7320/X6DVL-[/url]
    >>> EG.cfm
    >>>
    >>> -bash-2.05b$ df
    >>> Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on
    >>> /dev/ad4s1a 66008394 35424 60692300 0% /
    >>> devfs 1 1 0 100% /dev
    >>> ...
    >
    >> What do you expect to see?
    >
    >> A raid1 is a mirror set and to the OS would probably look like a single
    >> drive if it truly is a HW raid
    >
    > This should be true of any hardware RAID level, not just RAID1. The
    > HW RAID presents logical drives to the OS, which look like real drives
    > to it. The caveat is that the RAID driver will appear as the disk
    > type. I don't have any experience with SATA RAID, but on my server,
    > which has a Mylex ExtremeRAID 1100 SCSI RAID card, a df gives:
    >
    > Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on
    > /dev/mlxd0s1a ...
    > /dev/mlxd0s1d ...
    > /dev/mlxd0s1h ...
    > /dev/mlxd0s1e ...
    > /dev/mlxd0s1f ...
    > /dev/mlxd0s1g ...
    > /dev/mlxd1s1e ...
    > /dev/mlxd1s1f ...
    > /dev/mlxd1s1g ...
    > /dev/mlxd2s1e ...
    >
    > mlx(4) is the driver for this card. The underlying hard drive
    > structure doesn't look anything like the above, but this is irrelevant
    > to the OS.
    >
    > Regarding your situation, I believe that your MB uses an Adaptec SATA
    > controller. You should find out exactly what the controller is and if
    > it is supported in "Hardware Notes". I would expect that if your
    > controller is supported and found, then "ad" should be replaced by the
    > relevant driver. Also, have a look at the dmesg output. There should
    > be some sign that the OS is recognizing your RAID controller.
    >
    According to the MB specs at the URL given by the OP, the SATA is an
    Intel 6300ESB (part of a more general IO chip)

    " 6300ESB (Hance Rapids) SATA Controller (2x Drive support)
    2x SATA Ports
    RAID 0, 1, JBOD support"


    I don't see any specific mention of this in any of the HW notes for
    5.3. I would be interested to see the dmesg output at boot time to see
    what the system sees for devices and controllers. If it is an ATA raid
    (pseudo HW RAID) then it would show as arX devices and not adX
    according to the handbook.

    Chad

    _______________________________________________
    [email]freebsd-questionsfreebsd.org[/email] mailing list
    [url]http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions[/url]
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribefreebsd.org"

    Spades Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: raid1


    On Feb 19, 2005, at 6:39 PM, Spades wrote:
    > How do we check if FreeBSD recorgnises it as individual drives or
    > Hardware RAID array.
    Your raid chip appears to be a software ATA raid. man ata

    The raid appears as arN according to man ata

    look in the dmesg to see what happened at boot -- this will tell you
    how the controller and drives were found by FreeBSD

    /var/run/dmesg.boot

    Chad
    >
    > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC"
    > <chadshire.net>
    > To: "Sandy Rutherford" <sandykrvarr.bc.ca>
    > Cc: <freebsd-questionsfreebsd.org>; "Spades" <spadesgalaxynet.org>
    > Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 5:46 PM
    > Subject: Re: raid1
    >
    >
    >
    > On Feb 19, 2005, at 12:37 AM, Sandy Rutherford wrote:
    >
    >>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 23:51:53 -0700,
    >>>>>>> "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC" <chadshire.net> said:
    >>
    >>> On Feb 18, 2005, at 11:39 PM, Spades wrote:
    >>
    >>>> hi, my server hardware supports hardware raid, i installed it
    >>>> as per normal freebsd 5.3, however i see no difference
    >>>> in df. its using 2 x 160GB, what do i do during the installation
    >>>> to enable the raid?
    >>>>
    >>>> mobo:
    >>>> [url]http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon800/E7320/X6DVL-[/url]
    >>>> EG.cfm
    >>>>
    >>>> -bash-2.05b$ df
    >>>> Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on
    >>>> /dev/ad4s1a 66008394 35424 60692300 0% /
    >>>> devfs 1 1 0 100% /dev
    >>>> ...
    >>
    >>> What do you expect to see?
    >>
    >>> A raid1 is a mirror set and to the OS would probably look like a
    >>> single
    >>> drive if it truly is a HW raid
    >>
    >> This should be true of any hardware RAID level, not just RAID1. The
    >> HW RAID presents logical drives to the OS, which look like real drives
    >> to it. The caveat is that the RAID driver will appear as the disk
    >> type. I don't have any experience with SATA RAID, but on my server,
    >> which has a Mylex ExtremeRAID 1100 SCSI RAID card, a df gives:
    >>
    >> Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on
    >> /dev/mlxd0s1a ...
    >> /dev/mlxd0s1d ...
    >> /dev/mlxd0s1h ...
    >> /dev/mlxd0s1e ...
    >> /dev/mlxd0s1f ...
    >> /dev/mlxd0s1g ...
    >> /dev/mlxd1s1e ...
    >> /dev/mlxd1s1f ...
    >> /dev/mlxd1s1g ...
    >> /dev/mlxd2s1e ...
    >>
    >> mlx(4) is the driver for this card. The underlying hard drive
    >> structure doesn't look anything like the above, but this is irrelevant
    >> to the OS.
    >>
    >> Regarding your situation, I believe that your MB uses an Adaptec SATA
    >> controller. You should find out exactly what the controller is and if
    >> it is supported in "Hardware Notes". I would expect that if your
    >> controller is supported and found, then "ad" should be replaced by the
    >> relevant driver. Also, have a look at the dmesg output. There should
    >> be some sign that the OS is recognizing your RAID controller.
    >>
    >
    > According to the MB specs at the URL given by the OP, the SATA is an
    > Intel 6300ESB (part of a more general IO chip)
    >
    > " 6300ESB (Hance Rapids) SATA Controller (2x Drive support)
    > 2x SATA Ports
    > RAID 0, 1, JBOD support"
    >
    >
    > I don't see any specific mention of this in any of the HW notes for
    > 5.3. I would be interested to see the dmesg output at boot time to see
    > what the system sees for devices and controllers. If it is an ATA raid
    > (pseudo HW RAID) then it would show as arX devices and not adX
    > according to the handbook.
    >
    > Chad
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > [email]freebsd-questionsfreebsd.org[/email] mailing list
    > [url]http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions[/url]
    > To unsubscribe, send any mail to
    > "freebsd-questions-unsubscribefreebsd.org"
    Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re[2]: raid1

     
     [/ref]
     
     
     
     
     
     
    >>
    >> According to the MB specs at the URL given by the OP, the SATA is an
    >> Intel 6300ESB (part of a more general IO chip)
    >>
    >> " 6300ESB (Hance Rapids) SATA Controller (2x Drive support)
    >> 2x SATA Ports
    >> RAID 0, 1, JBOD support"
    >>
    >>
    >> I don't see any specific mention of this in any of the HW notes for
    >> 5.3. I would be interested to see the dmesg output at boot time to see
    >> what the system sees for devices and controllers. If it is an ATA raid
    >> (pseudo HW RAID) then it would show as arX devices and not adX
    >> according to the handbook.
    >>
    >> Chad
    >>[/ref][/ref]

    ---------------------------------------------

    Concerning that chip I've found these
    http://www.ambrisko.com/doug/ata/
    in some mails to freebsd-current. Right now I am in the proces of
    patching my system with these to see iif that does the trick of
    supporting Raid.

    Regards Hexren

    btw:
    The post from freebsd-current
    http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2004-September/038025.html
    googling for "6300esb freebsd site:freebsd.org" turns up some more
    posts.

    Hexren Guest

Similar Threads

  1. Annoying Problem - Flash Installation
    By DaveDave123 in forum Macromedia Flash Player
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: May 7th, 05:28 PM
  2. really annoying cfm problem
    By SheratonGroup in forum Coldfusion Server Administration
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 18th, 12:26 AM
  3. problem updating ports
    By Rene C. Mendoza in forum FreeBSD
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 17th, 07:37 AM
  4. Using 'Jump Back' behaviour - annoying problem
    By timthegreek webforumsuser@macromedia.com in forum Macromedia Director Basics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 23rd, 09:46 PM
  5. Notification area - small annoying problem
    By Jake in forum Windows XP/2000/ME
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 8th, 06:03 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139