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

Bug#865965: InvalidBlockDeviceMapping error while creating a new ami based on stretch one



Package: cloud.debian.org
Severity: important
User: cloud.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: image
Usertags: aws
Hi, 
i'm using packer to create a custom AMI from the debian ones.
I've tried today to use my jessie working script on the eu-west-1 stretch ami (ami-e79f8781) 

My custom ami must have a specific size for first partition, so , i use a specific block device mapping. 
On the Stretch AMI, it fails with message: 
amazon-ebs: Error launching source instance: InvalidBlockDeviceMapping: The device 'xvda' is used in more than one block-device mapping
==> amazon-ebs: 	status code: 400, request id: ec5463c3-2498-4084-a1aa-825b24b07287

I've tried to check ebs differences between the working jessie ami and this one 
and the difference is in the naming of the block device: 

ON THE JESSIE AMI ( latest eu-west-1 ami-402f1a33 ) 
 aws ec2 describe-images --image-ids ami-402f1a33
i got: 
"BlockDeviceMappings": [
                {
                    "DeviceName": "/dev/xvda",
                    "Ebs": {
                        "DeleteOnTermination": true,
                        "SnapshotId": "snap-24b26142",
                        "VolumeSize": 8,
                        "VolumeType": "gp2",
                        "Encrypted": false
                    }
                }
            ],


ON THE STRECH AMI ( latest eu-west-1 api-e79f8781) 
aws ec2 describe-images --image-ids ami-e79f8781
"BlockDeviceMappings": [
                {
                    "DeviceName": "xvda",
                    "Ebs": {
                        "DeleteOnTermination": true,
                        "SnapshotId": "snap-008a8996c9049174d",
                        "VolumeSize": 8,
                        "VolumeType": "gp2",
                        "Encrypted": false
                    }
                }
            ],

The device name is different between the 2 builds. So i assume that is the failing pp
point.

Thank you
--
Xavier Lembo (xlembo@eliberty.fr)



Reply to: