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

Bug#417407: debian-installer: d-i destroyed existing raid device



On Monday 02 April 2007 18:33, Peter Nuttall wrote:
> D-I questions: I just pressed enter at the prompt, and set my keyboard
> and location to enGB. On reaching the disk stage, I asked it to set up
> hda as a LVM with / /home /tmp and /var on seperate paritions. On
> checking the result seemed to suggest no changes to /dev/sda or
> /dev/sdb. I have attached syslog and partman from /var/log/installer.

This seems correct to me.  Guided partitioning on hda should in no way
affect the two SATA disks, and the partman log at least shows they are
unchanged at the end.

At start of partitioning
========================
parted_server: OUT: 1	32256-300066439679	300066407424	primary	ext3	/dev/scsi/host1/bus0/target0/lun0/part1	
parted_server: OUT: 1	32256-300066439679	300066407424	primary	ext3	/dev/scsi/host3/bus0/target0/lun0/part1	

At end of partitioning
========================
parted_server: OUT: 1	32256-300066439679	300066407424	primary	ext3	/dev/scsi/host1/bus0/target0/lun0/part1	
parted_server: OUT: 1	32256-300066439679	300066407424	primary	ext3	/dev/scsi/host3/bus0/target0/lun0/part1	

I do similar partitioning myself sometimes and have never seen changes
to another disk than the one selected.

the next possibility I considered that the installation of the boot loader
could have gone wrong: that grub could have thought that one of the SATA
disks was "the first disk in the system" instead of the IDE disk. However,
the syslog shows that went correctly as well:
Apr  2 11:04:17 grub-installer: info: Installing grub on '(hd0)'
[...]
Apr  2 11:04:25 grub-installer: (hd0)^I/dev/hda
Apr  2 11:04:25 grub-installer: (hd1)^I/dev/sda
Apr  2 11:04:25 grub-installer: (hd2)^I/dev/sdb

(And even if the wrong disk was selected, I don't think it would have
affected the RAID.)

However, the syslog does show some strange activity while the installer is
probing for other operating systems:
Apr  2 10:45:49 os-prober: debug: running /usr/lib/os-probes/50mounted-tests on /dev/discs/disc1/part1
Apr  2 10:45:48 kernel: EXT2-fs: sdb1: couldn't mount because of unsupported optional features (4).
Apr  2 10:45:48 kernel: EXT3-fs: INFO: recovery required on readonly filesystem.
Apr  2 10:45:48 kernel: EXT3-fs: write access will be enabled during recovery.
Apr  2 10:45:48 kernel: kjournald starting.  Commit interval 5 seconds
Apr  2 10:45:48 kernel: EXT3-fs: recovery complete.
Apr  2 10:45:48 kernel: EXT3-fs: mounted filesystem with ordered data mode.
Apr  2 10:45:48 50mounted-tests: debug: mounted as ext3 filesystem
[...]
Apr  2 10:45:49 os-prober: debug: running /usr/lib/os-probes/50mounted-tests on /dev/discs/disc1/part1
Apr  2 10:45:49 kernel: EXT2-fs: sda1: couldn't mount because of unsupported optional features (4).
Apr  2 10:45:49 kernel: EXT3-fs: INFO: recovery required on readonly filesystem.
Apr  2 10:45:49 kernel: EXT3-fs: write access will be enabled during recovery.
Apr  2 10:45:49 kernel: kjournald starting.  Commit interval 5 seconds
Apr  2 10:45:49 kernel: EXT3-fs: recovery complete.
Apr  2 10:45:49 kernel: EXT3-fs: mounted filesystem with ordered data mode.
Apr  2 10:45:49 50mounted-tests: debug: mounted as ext3 filesystem
[...]
Apr  2 11:04:14 os-prober: debug: running /usr/lib/os-probes/50mounted-tests on /dev/discs/disc1/part1
Apr  2 11:04:14 kernel: EXT2-fs warning (device sda1): ext2_fill_super: mounting ext3 filesystem as ext2
Apr  2 11:04:14 50mounted-tests: debug: mounted as ext2 filesystem
[...]
Apr  2 11:04:14 os-prober: debug: running /usr/lib/os-probes/50mounted-tests on /dev/discs/disc2/part1
Apr  2 11:04:14 kernel: EXT2-fs warning (device sdb1): ext2_fill_super: mounting ext3 filesystem as ext2
Apr  2 11:04:14 50mounted-tests: debug: mounted as ext2 filesystem

I have no idea what this means exactly. I suggest asking a file system
expert look at this.

The only advise I can give ATM is not to panic and not to take hasty actions.

Cheers,
FJP

Attachment: pgpgiUr1_rbbD.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: