On 04/17/2012 06:27 AM, Steph Gosling wrote:
> (bad form replying to myself)
>
> I've found the issue upstream:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=729586
>
> Last comment there saying there are patches in an as yet unreleased
> kernel-2.6.32-229.el6. I've had a quick look at the SRPMS
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:35:07 +0100
Karanbir Singh wrote:
> hi,
>
> Please dont toppost, trim your reply and keep context in your replies.
Apologies (mail sent before coffee this morning!)
> On 04/17/2012 08:04 AM, Steph Gosling wrote:
> > them as 'xvdN' but N in this case is 'e', not 'a', 'f',
hi,
Please dont toppost, trim your reply and keep context in your replies.
On 04/17/2012 08:04 AM, Steph Gosling wrote:
> them as 'xvdN' but N in this case is 'e', not 'a', 'f', not 'b' and so
> on.
And labels dont help here ?
--
Karanbir Singh
+44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter
(bad form replying to myself)
I've found the issue upstream:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=729586
Last comment there saying there are patches in an as yet unreleased
kernel-2.6.32-229.el6. I've had a quick look at the SRPMS upstream and
don't see that one yet so a related question:
Hi Karanbir,
That's the thing, older (non pv-grub aware kernels) did used to map
them with the old scsi device names, but here now it's still mapping
them as 'xvdN' but N in this case is 'e', not 'a', 'f', not 'b' and so
on.
Upstream seem to have a handful of bugs related to dracut and initramfs
On 04/16/2012 10:44 AM, Steph Gosling wrote:
> Does anyone have any similar experience or advice?
>
because the devices are now mapped as sda/sdb instead of xvda/xvdb ?
--
Karanbir Singh
+44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh
ICQ: 2522219| Yahoo IM: z00dax | Gtal
Hi,
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:55:17 +0200
wwp wrote:
> Hello Steph,
>
> Check if the thread "Recent kernel update vs usb disk" is related to
> your issue (I presume so), thread is from early March 2012.
>
>
> Regards,
Think the problems are different as this isn't related to the USB
subsystem.
Hello Steph,
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:44:24 +0100 Steph Gosling wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Is anyone successfully running/has succesfully upgraded to 2.6.32-220
> from, say, 2.6.32-71.29.1? (i.e. done a normal run-of-the-mill yum
> update on, say a 6.0 instance all the way up cleanly to 6.2?
>
> Reas
Hi all,
Is anyone successfully running/has succesfully upgraded to 2.6.32-220
from, say, 2.6.32-71.29.1? (i.e. done a normal run-of-the-mill yum
update on, say a 6.0 instance all the way up cleanly to 6.2?
Reason I ask is that booting into -220 (and I think also into -131 as
well) results in a ke
9 matches
Mail list logo
