install problems on RAID

I'm probably making some absolutely stupid mistake.
I've done this several times before and it worked, but maybe
it was either 3.0 or /i386.
I've spent most of the day trying to install (4.0_BETA2) via
network onto a RAID1 and the <beep> sysinst insists on
installing an MBR onto the RAID proper. Of course, this
makes all the partitions move by 63 sectors and the primary
boot not finding the secondary one.
Have there been any recent "improvements" in
sysinst to keep people from not installing an MBR? I tried
for two hours tricking sysinst into not writing the MBR, but
to no avail. Also, I'm not allowed to delete the
<beep> c partition from the disklabel in sysinst. So,
even if I manage to make the partitions start at 0, after
writing the label, newfs on the root fs fails because it
can't write block 32.
As I started, I'm probably making some entirely stupid
mistake, but I don't know what it is.

So I just checked, it seems I've not gone mad.
The installer behaves differently for amd64 and i386.
For i386, it skips the "edit MBR/use entire disk"
step and goes straight
to the disklabel step after I've chosen the sets to
install.

OK, probably this will fix it (I'm not sure whether the
names ar OK,
I just copied from i386):

--- distrib/utils/sysinst/arch/amd64/md.h.orig	2006-02-26
11:25:52.000000000 +0100
+++ distrib/utils/sysinst/arch/amd64/md.h	2007-04-02
20:43:16.000000000 +0200
 -73,6
+73,14 
 #define SET_KERNEL_GENERIC	SET_KERNEL_1
 
 /*
+ * Disk names accepted as valid targets for a from-scratch
installation.
+ *
+ * On amd64, we allow "wd"  ST-506/IDE disks, 
"sd" scsi disks, "ld" logical
+ * disks, "ed" IBM ESDI disks, "raid"
raidframe disks
+ */
+#define DISK_NAMES "wd", "sd",
"ld", "ed", "raid:no_mbr",
"xbd:no_mbr"
+
+/*
  * Machine-specific command to write a new label to a
disk.
  * For example, i386  uses "/sbin/disklabel -w
-r", just like i386
  * miniroot scripts, though this may leave a bogus incore
label.

> OK, probably this will fix it (I'm not sure whether the
names ar[e]  
> OK,
> I just copied from i386):
Hm, can anyone comment on this?
I'm just trying to keep my amount on local patches on
netbsd-4 down.

On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 18:34:58 +0200
Edgar Fuß <efmath.uni-bonn.de> wrote:

> > OK, probably this will fix it (I'm not sure
whether the names ar[e]  
> > OK,
> > I just copied from i386):
> Hm, can anyone comment on this?
> I'm just trying to keep my amount on local patches on
netbsd-4 down.

Your patch is ok, except that amd64 still doesn't support
Xen and MCA.

+#define DISK_NAMES "wd", "sd",
"ld", "ed", "raid:no_mbr",
"xbd:no_mbr"

I'll keep xbd as we could add support for Xen in the future,
but I'll
remove 'ed' because it's a MCA driver.

-- 
http://plog.xtrarom.org/

Juan RP's blog - NetBSD/pkgsrc news in Spanish

On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 06:37:45PM +0200, Juan RP wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 18:34:58 +0200
> Edgar Fuß <efmath.uni-bonn.de> wrote:
> 
> > > OK, probably this will fix it (I'm not sure
whether the names ar[e]  
> > > OK,
> > > I just copied from i386):
> > Hm, can anyone comment on this?
> > I'm just trying to keep my amount on local patches
on netbsd-4 down.
> 
> Your patch is ok, except that amd64 still doesn't
support Xen and MCA.
> 
> +#define DISK_NAMES "wd", "sd",
"ld", "ed", "raid:no_mbr",
"xbd:no_mbr"
> 
> I'll keep xbd

Yes, please 
I feel this could be shared with i386 ...

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bouyerantioche.eu.org>
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la
difference
--