Josh Grosse wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:05:00 +0100, Peter van Oord van der Vlies wrote:
>
>> I still had a swap on both disks so i use that one now and disabled the
>> swap on raid0.
>> It seems to work..
>
> Glad you got things working.
>

The systems are still working. Done several rebuilds and kernel builds
today where he normally crashed.


>> Here is the information you want(the fault and trace is below):
>
> <snip>
>
>> ...The crash:
>>
>> uvm_fault(0xd0821a20, 0xe9dbd00, 0, 1) -> e
>> kernel: page fault trap, code=0
>> Stopped at pmap_page_remove_86+0x125: movl 0(%eax,%edx,4),%eax
>>
>>
>> show panic:
>> the kernel did not panic
>>
>>
>> trace:
>> pmap_page_remove_86(d0cba46,d04b6474,8,246,d7fd738 a8) at
>> pmap_page_remove_86+0x125
>> uvm_vnp_terminate(d8135138,0,0,0,0,14,d81869d8,9) at uvm_vnp_terminate+0x36b
>> uvm_attach(d8135138,0,b7,0,d7f4f89c) at uvn_attach+0x2d1
>> uvmspace_free(d7f4f89c,6,d085f740) at uvmspace_free+0x10d
>> uvm_exit(d7f3d87c,d038e561,8,286) at uvm_exit+0x1a
>> reaper(d81869d8) at reaper+0x9a
>> Bad frame pointer: 0xd0989eb8
>
> Your snipped disklabels showed your IDE drives, but not your raid drives.
> I am going to guess your problem was a swap partition config issue,
> perhaps your raid disklabels have swap as the first partition, and there
> is no offset?
>
No the first was a 2048M partition , the 2nd was the swap.

> Anyway, its just conjecture. You now have a working RAIDFrame system.
> Congratulations!
>
>
Next time we buy them with hardware raid controllers and scsi disks.
Normally we do that but only this st*pid customers wants this cheap
systems.