Sun Storage Array BUG 
Author Message
 Sun Storage Array BUG

In my "Informix and Storage Array woes" posting I asked how can you
blow away the disk label writing to a raw partition?

Well, you can WHEN THEY PUT THE LABEL INSIDE THE PARTITION.
Thats what they do in a Sun Storage Array.

# dd if=/dev/rdsk/c1t1d1s2 count=4 | od -c

0000000 SUN1.05 cyl 2036
0000020  alt 2 hd 14 sec
0000040 72 \0 \0 \0 ......and so on

You dd in and out of the partition (or use it as an Informix
raw partition) until you reboot when the Vol. Manager gets upset
about there being no disk label.

So the fix for Informix is to have offset=something in onconfig.

Anybody out there who uses dd and raw partitions: you have been warned!

- Randy



Tue, 16 Sep 1997 03:00:00 GMT
 Sun Storage Array BUG

  Continuing with this one person thread, I have received email telling
me that the Sun slice 2 / "c" partition has the Label at the beginning,
whether or not it is on a Storage Array.  Why, why, why?
  I apologize for maligning the Storage Array.

  Yours in pulling out hair and getting ulcers,
     - Randy



Tue, 16 Sep 1997 03:00:00 GMT
 Sun Storage Array BUG
At a recent Sun configuration seminar it has been mentioned that on any Sun
drive you really don't want to use slice #0 for the raw partition.  You can
make the raw partition as large as you like, but use #1 or greater.

I'm not sure how this applies to the SPARCstorage Array, but there you
have it.

Sun also purports that raw partitions only gain you 2% less throughput under
Solaris 2.4.  If you're still using 2.3 or (gasp!) SunOS 4.x, you'll still want to use
raw partitions.

Have an incredibly pleasant week.!

Kris

\  Kriston Rehberg         \





Fri, 19 Sep 1997 03:00:00 GMT
 Sun Storage Array BUG

Quote:

> At a recent Sun configuration seminar it has been mentioned that on any Sun
> drive you really don't want to use slice #0 for the raw partition.  You can
> make the raw partition as large as you like, but use #1 or greater.

> I'm not sure how this applies to the SPARCstorage Array, but there you
> have it.

> Sun also purports that raw partitions only gain you 2% less throughput under
> Solaris 2.4.  If you're still using 2.3 or (gasp!) SunOS 4.x, you'll still want to use
> raw partitions.

> Have an incredibly pleasant week.!

> Kris

I believe you mean cylinder 0 instead of slice 0.

Which slice you use is irrelevant as long as you skip the label at
the beginning in the first few blocks of the disk.
e.g.

Part      Tag    Flag     Cylinders        Size       Blocks
  0 unassigned    wm       1 -   82       64.68MB    (82/0/0)

--
____________________________________________________________________________
Doug Hughes                                     Engineering Network Services
System/Net Admin                                Auburn University

                "Real programmers use cat > file.as"



Fri, 19 Sep 1997 03:00:00 GMT
 Sun Storage Array BUG

Quote:

>   Continuing with this one person thread, I have received email telling
> me that the Sun slice 2 / "c" partition has the Label at the beginning,
> whether or not it is on a Storage Array.  Why, why, why?
>   I apologize for maligning the Storage Array.

>   Yours in pulling out hair and getting ulcers,
>      - Randy

Where else would you put the label? It has to go on the disk someplace.
By convention it's at the beginning (if you could call it that) of the
disk. slice 2/c is the whole disk, so naturally the label is at the beginning.
If you do a newfs on that partition, everything is fine. If you want
to use it as a raw partition (for swap/ database/ whatever) you should
skip the first cylinder.. You lose a MB or 2. so what... Better to
lose an MB than all your format and bad block info I should think. ;)

--
____________________________________________________________________________
Doug Hughes                                     Engineering Network Services
System/Net Admin                                Auburn University

                "Real programmers use cat > file.as"



Mon, 22 Sep 1997 03:00:00 GMT
 
 [ 5 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. SUN Sparc 2000 with SUN Storage Array (30GB)`

2. Oracle in mirror'd or RAID'd storage arrays (SUN)

3. Sybase 10.0.2 and Sun's Storage Arrays

4. Sybase and Sun Storage Array

5. Q: SUN Storage Array or Fast+Wide-SCSI ?

6. Q: SUN Storage Array or Fast+Wide-SCSI ???

7. SUN Storage Array

8. Sun Storage Array and Sybase (4.9.2 or System 10)

9. Bug #876: Bugs Inserts Arrays

10. What is the best storage configuration for Oracle on Sun Enterprize 250


 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software