In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> Choosing another menu item that fails totaly can get it back to a
>> consistant state. Choosing a menu item that partly succeds (such as
>> lvm) can make things even crazier.
>
>Can you give more details about this?
I was able to create
When trying to create a logical volume, I get the error:
Striped: Required device-mapper target(s) not in your kernel
--
Blars Blarson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.blars.org/blars.html
With Microsoft, failure is not an option. It is a standard f
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 12:55:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> You are meaning that if the kernel uses one of the partitions of the partition
> table, it can then not modify the other ones ?
Yes.
> > 6. When the user finishes partman writes the partition tables to the
> >disks. The kernel
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 01:51:24PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 10:51:42PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> > I still don't get why the kernel should complain though ?
>
> Because it can not reread the partition table if it uses some of the
> partitions for something - s
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 03:36:14PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> > Or partition we are mounting without formating if its type doesn't
> > correspond to the file system it contains.
>
> Well, i don't think so, not automatically at least.
Partman has to do something with the partition type of s
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 10:51:42PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> I still don't get why the kernel should complain though ?
Because it can not reread the partition table if it uses some of the
partitions for something - swap (partman automaticaly activates any
existing swap to allow small memory
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 11:10:01PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 08:47:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> > > In many cases this
> > > means that partman will have to write unchanged partition tables.
> >
> > So what ?
>
> At least the kernel will complain. But yes -
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 08:47:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > In many cases this
> > means that partman will have to write unchanged partition tables.
>
> So what ?
At least the kernel will complain. But yes - this is a solution,
although not nice in my opinion.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UN
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 10:26:01PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> > I don't follow this. You read the partition table, modify the type for one
> > partition type, write it back.
>
> If the file system type is unchanged partman can not know whether the
> partition type is modified or not. Thats wh
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 07:21:04PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 09:13:47PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 03:36:14PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > >
> > > > Or partition we are mounting without formating if its type doesn't
> > > > correspond to the
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 09:13:47PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 03:36:14PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> > > Or partition we are mounting without formating if its type doesn't
> > > correspond to the file system it contains.
> >
> > Well, i don't think so, not automati
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 03:36:14PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > Or partition we are mounting without formating if its type doesn't
> > correspond to the file system it contains.
>
> Well, i don't think so, not automatically at least.
(Lib)parted repairs the wrong partition types in all cases
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 05:31:15PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 03:07:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > 1. Partman may not write all partition tables - some of them may be for
> > >example USB disk we are installing from
> >
> > So what ?
>
> The following is a q
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 03:07:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > 1. Partman may not write all partition tables - some of them may be for
> >example USB disk we are installing from
>
> So what ?
The following is a quote from
http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2004/debian-boot-200402/msg01788
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 04:48:32PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 02:25:02PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> > Ah, no, it was a swap paritition previously, not an ext3.
>
> Are you sure that it didn't contain ext3 signatures already? If it
> contained swap but partman didn
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 02:25:02PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> Ah, no, it was a swap paritition previously, not an ext3.
Are you sure that it didn't contain ext3 signatures already? If it
contained swap but partman didn't update the partition type then this
must be some unknown bug. (Well, it
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 04:20:17PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 11:40:37PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> > BTW, i also believe that this is a problem on pegasos. Doing a
> > ped_partition_set_system each time we put a filesystem on a partition may be
> > the thing to do
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 11:40:37PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> BTW, i also believe that this is a problem on pegasos. Doing a
> ped_partition_set_system each time we put a filesystem on a partition may be
> the thing to do, do you do this ?
Yes.
> Example, on pegasos, i was going to install an
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 07:22:09PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 01:00:51PM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
> >
> > Looking into the partman bugs reports, I think all of these bugs are
> > symptoms of the same partman bug:
>
> In my opinion most of these bugs are different.
>
On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 01:00:51PM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
>
> Looking into the partman bugs reports, I think all of these bugs are
> symptoms of the same partman bug:
In my opinion most of these bugs are different.
> My summery is that partman has information in memory on what the
> desired
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Blars Blarson wrote:
| lvm was what failed on missing modules. I was able to mark partitions
| as physical volumes and create the volume group using the choose an
| option that fails to convince it to accept the current configuration
| trick, but creat
On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 06:04:28PM -0800, Joshua Kwan wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Blars Blarson wrote:
> | After doing successful installs using rc2 on a stack of sparc systems
> | (ultra1, ultra1e, ultra2, ultra2) I started playing with raid and lvm
> | installs.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Blars Blarson wrote:
| After doing successful installs using rc2 on a stack of sparc systems
| (ultra1, ultra1e, ultra2, ultra2) I started playing with raid and lvm
| installs. Unfortunatly, the raid and lvm stuff failed due to bugs in
| partman and mi
After doing successful installs using rc2 on a stack of sparc systems
(ultra1, ultra1e, ultra2, ultra2) I started playing with raid and lvm
installs. Unfortunatly, the raid and lvm stuff failed due to bugs in
partman and missing modules.
However, I did find a counterintuitive workaround for bug 2
24 matches
Mail list logo
