[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: Problems/workarounds for install to root on LVM on RAID



I didn't think that a new mkinitrd would be in testing for a few more days.

The lvm1 vs lvm2 thing shouldn't matter unless I'm trying to setup root on
lvm.  And I'm going to hold off on that for a couple weeks to wait for fixes
to make their way into testing.  But I might try get boot working on raid1.

Josha Foust

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Steinkuehler [mailto:charles@steinkuehler.net] 
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 12:16 PM
To: Josha Foust
Cc: debian-boot@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Problems/workarounds for install to root on LVM on RAID

Josha Foust wrote:

> A rather serious problem I encountered when running LVM on RAID is that as
> of a few days ago, RAID wasn't automatically activated on startup.  This
> caused LVM to find its partitions inside the RAID partition and mount one
of
> those.  This is obviously a horrible thing to do as it breaks your RAID
> mirroring and thus you end up with a corrupt RAID device when you do bring
> it up.  Although if you know what you are doing and what happened you
could
> probably recover from it.  The lvm lists say you need to put an exclusion
in
> the device section lvm config for the underlying partitions or drives that
> make up the raid device.  There is suppose to be a patch floating around
on
> the lvm list to automatically skip partitions that have a partition type
of
> raid autodetect as the default behavior.

This seems to be working with the May 26th image, although I'll verify 
once I get a working system again (I'm currently wiping the disks so I 
can start from scratch and verify everything works from 'bare metal').

Are you sure you got the latest mkinitrd, and coerced it into not 
running LVM1?  I think some of the LVM and mkinitrd stuff changed right 
around the 24th/25th time frame (based on trolling lvm d-i bugs).

<snip>

> The raid device also shows it only being 2.0 GB in size when the partition
> underneath it is 79GB.

If you're referring to the display in partman, I saw similar behavior, 
which I attributed to a 'wrapping' problem.  My 150G raid partition was 
listed as some small number of MB on one line, and the correct size on 
another.  I'll note details when I re-install.

> This was all on the 20040524 build.

I used the May 25 & May 26 builds...not sure what (if anything) changed 
from the 24th.

-- 
Charles Steinkuehler
charles@steinkuehler.net






Reply to: