[SGVLUG] FW: Missing ext2 devices

[Claude Felizardo]

That's strange.  According to the output of fdisk he posted, the partition
types were identified as 5, 82 and 83 (ext, swap & linux).  On my raid
system, I have type=fd which is linux raid auto.  Was it a bios setting that
FC12 was interpreting differently than FC8?

I ran into a big snag a while ago trying to reuse drives that had been in
another raid and the darn system kept trying to start the raids on those
devices while I was trying to add them to a new system.  Recreating the
partition tables didn't seem to help, possibly because I was using the exact
same sizes so it kept finding a valid raid signature.  IIRC, I had to zero
out the beginning of the partitions before I could proceed.

claude


On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Rae Yip <rae.yip at gmail.com> wrote:

> I was going to wait for Matt to reply, but basically he ended up
> trying the nodmraid kernel option, and that seems to have gotten his
> drive to probe properly.
>
> This suggests that dmraid identified sdc as part of a raidset (even
> though Matt had never used the disk in one), so the kernel froze out
> the partition-numbered devices for some bogus safety concern.
>
> I don't believe udev is used to create /dev/sd* devices, just to alias
> them to other names, at least in Fedora.
>
> -Rae.
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 11:42 PM, John E. Kreznar <jek at ininx.com> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > In a posting purporting to be from "Matt Campbell" <dvdmatt at gmail.com>
> > but lacking a digital signature, it is written:
> >
> >> - Under F12 the old ext2 partitions don't get created in /dev.
> >
> > Do they show up in the boot-time dmesg?  (Look at /var/log/dmesg or do
> > dmesg command.)
> >
> > Does the system use udev?  Look at the rules for sd* in /etc/udev/*.
> > Do they extend to sdc?
> >
> > - --
> >  John E. Kreznar jek at ininx.com 9F1148454619A5F08550 705961A47CC541AFEF13
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> > Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ <
> http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
> >
> > iD8DBQFLGg3/YaR8xUGv7xMRAg16AJ4gq36DXkeYGAnQvOPPXGP8XppxOgCfYzC6
> > rrsOrpxpLgZCY349f4jTqkA=
> > =/IlW
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.sgvlug.net/pipermail/sgvlug/attachments/20091206/fe89dfcd/attachment.html