Re: Disk /dev/md6 doesn't contain valid partition table
The story continues, unfortunately.
After the last kind mail below, I could carry out several long
parallel computations on all 4 physical (8 logical) dual-opteron 875
processors , or a fraction of them(amd6a lenny; H8QCE Supermicro
motherboard; two WD Raptor HD (ext3 file syst) under Linux raid1 as
previously described; 24GB ram registered ECC Kingston 400 MHz). The
last computation with 8 processor finished regularly and the computer
was also regularly shut down (shutdown -h now). No overheating during
the computations, the machine is very well ventilated and there is
partial control from "sensors" (Supermicro never provided data to
fully set up sensors). The booting procedure is set up so as to end at
the terminal screen. If I want the X sytem (which I use on rare
occasions) I have to command as user "startx".
This morning, trying to start the computer, the kernel seems to be
loaded but the procedure did not end successfully. On the last part of
the screen output:
DR0 000 DR1 000 DR! 000
fff .. copy_strings
fff ... search_binary_handler
As the procedure did no proceed farther than this, the computer was
reset from the "RESET" button, whereby re-booting occurred and the
screen - unlike the above - showed (inter alia):
PCI found disabled HT MSI Mapping on 0000...
Assign interrupt mode Found MSI capability
Real Time Clock Driver v1.12ac
input MacIntosch mouse button emulation
Freeing unused kernel memory: 316k
input: AT translated Set 2 keyboard as /class/input/input1
(the procedure halted here. Retrying, same sequence of events.
Knoppix 5.3 loaded correctly, as far as I could see. All memory and
all 8 logical processors and the MacIntosh type mouse were loaded.
However, clicking on either "sda" or "sdb" on the screen:
Could not mount. Could not determine the file system type and no one
On the terminal, /home is knoppix. Cd to /mnt showed sda and sdb but
on cd to these two directories, ls did not show anything. (Problem
with the HDD?). The computer was shut down from Knoppix.
Waiting for some general advice or specific direction as to what
should be checked.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 6:58 PM, C M Reinehr <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Thu 30 October 2008 04:14, Francesco Pietra wrote:
>> Then, let me ask about a raid1 devised mainly for the system than the
>> data (once a calculation is finished, all files are sent to a desktop;
>> no data remain in my home. This also because I need fast HDDs, while
>> space on WD Raptor is very limited: 150GB each HDD). With so many
>> applications that require a long compilation, a fault in the system is
>> a terrible waste of time. It occurred to me, at the time I had raid1
>> with two cheap HDDs. that one HHD suffered mechanical failure.
>> Replaced, the system on raid1 was automatically restored.
>> Which one of the kindly offered recipes for raid1 is the most suited
>> to the above case? (that, I guess, is quite common - if not the norm -
>> in computational chemistry, biology, etc).
> From your point of view, I don't think it matters. Each method, with or
> without LVM, is equally reliable. The advantage of LVM is just that it gives
> you more administrative flexibility. Should you subsequently decide that one
> volume (partition) is too small and another too large, you can resize them on
> the fly--rather than having to backup the partitions, resize them, & then
> restore the contents. Also, as someone on another group observed. Raid-1
> provided redundancy and LVM adds striping.
>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 4:01 AM, Alex Samad <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 11:07:36AM -0500, C M Reinehr wrote:
>> >> Francesco,
>> >> On Wed 29 October 2008 06:16, Francesco Pietra wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Alex Samad <email@example.com> wrote:
>> >> > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 08:24:55AM +0100, Francesco Pietra wrote:
>> >> > >> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 7:06 AM, Douglas A. Tutty
>> >> > >> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > >> > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 05:44:31AM +0100, Francesco Pietra wrote:
>> > [snip]
>> >> PS I agree with Alex regarding LVM2. I have only two partitions
>> >> defined on my hard drives, one each for two md arrays. The first md
>> >> device is for my boot partition. The second for everything else. The
>> >> everything else, then, is managed by LVM2 with logical volumes for each
>> >> seperate file system. LVM2 is a little intimidating but once up &
>> >> running is much easier to manage.
>> > I usually go with 3
>> > 1 - 500M /boot
>> > 2 - 20G for /
>> > 3 - the rest for lvm.
>> > I like keeping the / fs on something simple especially if I have to
>> > rescue it
>> >> --
>> >> Debian 'Etch' - Registered Linux User #241964
>> >> --------
>> >> "More laws, less justice." -- Marcus Tullius Ciceroca, 42 BC
>> >> --
>> >> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
>> >> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
>> >> email@example.com
>> > --
>> > "I need to be able to move the right people to the right place at the
>> > right time to protect you, and I'm not going to accept a lousy bill out
>> > of the United Nations Senate."
>> > - George W. Bush
>> > 10/31/2002
>> > South Bend, IN
>> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>> > iEYEARECAAYFAkkJI6IACgkQkZz88chpJ2MI7gCg0lbsxErdXiAigCJX5IExjEQe
>> > A4QAnjCjRrIskHRn/YW8nynxFnXBBa2Y
>> > =V9OO
>> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Debian 'Etch' - Registered Linux User #241964
> "More laws, less justice." -- Marcus Tullius Ciceroca, 42 BC
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org