Re: [tlug] raidframe on NetBSD

[Matt Doughty <mdoughty@example.com>]

You may be able to set up raid during install, but at this point
you still need a standard ffs file system for the first and
second stage bootloader, atleast not using 1.5.2 version.
I didn't see anything to suggest this has changed. I think it
is still the case that only the pmax, and alpha ports can 
bootstrap entirely from the RAID.

--Matt

On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 02:11:21PM +0900, Jack Morgan wrote:
> Matt Doughty wrote:
> > 
> > It depends on what port.  I'm not even 100% sure that they have
> > even gotten it 100% straitened out in the i386 port. I would
> 
> sorry, port-i386.
> 
> >From netbsd-user, Greg oster says:
> 
> Those of you following Source-Changes may have noticed that
> RAIDframe is now enabled by default in GENERIC on a number
> of architectures.  Hopefully it will soon be enabled in the
> INSTALL kernels as well :)
> 
> RAIDframe currently weighs in at 230K on i386 (with debugging
> turned off). Functionality includes RAID 0, 1, 4, and 5 with
> all the various queues, autoconfig, and other goodies. 
> 
> > suggest keeping a small partition set aside for boot.  RAID
> > frame is already a handful enough without trying to get the
> > boot block working correctly. Besides, you really don't want
> > to RAID the swap space anyway, and at that point there is a
> > compelling reason not to seperate off the boot partition also.
> 
> So it would appear that using a netbsd-current boot floppy, I
> set up raidframe during the install. Hmmm, anyway, I'll have a
> look more at the mail archives. 
> 
> Thanks for your help,
> 
> jack_morgan