FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-03-2008, 12:30 AM
Gerry Reno
 
Default F9 installation issues

I've had a good number of problems when installing F9 in partitioning
scenarios that are more than just very simple one drive setups.


So I ran a series of tests today and put some results in a bug that I
have opened on these problems:


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=443451

For example, I have yet to get anaconda/druid to properly install using
any type of RAID setup. Even a very simple, 2 drive setup fails.
I can get the software to install but anaconda cannot seem to install
the bootloader correctly so I either see GRUB or grub> after the Reboot.


And in more complex scenario like using LVM over RAID (which I use all
the time), anaconda gets a whole bunch of Unhandled Exceptions.


These things should be fixed before the F9 final release. F9 needs to
be able to handle all the RAIDed systems out there and right now it

won't be able to do that.


Gerry

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-03-2008, 12:43 AM
Bill Nottingham
 
Default F9 installation issues

Gerry Reno (greno@verizon.net) said:
> I've had a good number of problems when installing F9 in partitioning
> scenarios that are more than just very simple one drive setups.
>
> So I ran a series of tests today and put some results in a bug that I have
> opened on these problems:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=443451
>
> For example, I have yet to get anaconda/druid to properly install using any
> type of RAID setup. Even a very simple, 2 drive setup fails. I can get the
> software to install but anaconda cannot seem to install the bootloader
> correctly so I either see GRUB or grub> after the Reboot.
>
> And in more complex scenario like using LVM over RAID (which I use all the
> time), anaconda gets a whole bunch of Unhandled Exceptions.
>
> These things should be fixed before the F9 final release. F9 needs to be
> able to handle all the RAIDed systems out there and right now it
> won't be able to do that.

>From reading the bug, it seems to be a rather specific issue with the
kernel and your storage chipset, rather than a general issue. Are there
other AMD 790FX users out there?

Bill

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-03-2008, 01:30 AM
Gerry Reno
 
Default F9 installation issues

Bill Nottingham wrote:
Gerry Reno (greno@verizon.net) said:

I've had a good number of problems when installing F9 in partitioning
scenarios that are more than just very simple one drive setups.


So I ran a series of tests today and put some results in a bug that I have
opened on these problems:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=443451


For example, I have yet to get anaconda/druid to properly install using any
type of RAID setup. Even a very simple, 2 drive setup fails. I can get the
software to install but anaconda cannot seem to install the bootloader
correctly so I either see GRUB or grub> after the Reboot.


And in more complex scenario like using LVM over RAID (which I use all the
time), anaconda gets a whole bunch of Unhandled Exceptions.


These things should be fixed before the F9 final release. F9 needs to be
able to handle all the RAIDed systems out there and right now it

won't be able to do that.



>From reading the bug, it seems to be a rather specific issue with the
kernel and your storage chipset, rather than a general issue. Are there
other AMD 790FX users out there?

Bill


I'm sure there are a lot of them but they probably aren't reading this
list.

The 790 chipset is just the latest of the AMD 7-series chipsets and has
been out in the hands of vendors for a good while and the 790 has
generally been
available on m/b since last year.

Once I get Fedora to load and boot the system runs just fine. I don't
see any errors in /var/log/messages and I don't notice any type of drive
problems.
And the fact that I can get the system to install in certain scenarios
tells me that the chipset is probably not the problem.


So why should this chipset be a candidate for being the source of these
install problems when otherwise it operates the drive system just fine?


With anaconda receiving a great deal of changes lately, I suspect the
installer more than this chipset.


Regards,
Gerry




--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-03-2008, 01:35 AM
Bill Nottingham
 
Default F9 installation issues

Gerry Reno (greno@verizon.net) said:
> So why should this chipset be a candidate for being the source of these
> install problems when otherwise it operates the drive system just fine?

I/O error == can't read the disk/drives.

Bill

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-03-2008, 01:52 AM
Gerry Reno
 
Default F9 installation issues

Bill Nottingham wrote:
Gerry Reno (greno@verizon.net) said:

So why should this chipset be a candidate for being the source of these
install problems when otherwise it operates the drive system just fine?



I/O error == can't read the disk/drives.


or:
I/O error = code trying to read wrong device.

Regards,
Gerry

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-03-2008, 02:02 AM
Gerry Reno
 
Default F9 installation issues

Other people are seeing a number of installer problems and they aren't
using a 790 chipset.
So I think it's pretty clear that my chipset has nothing to do with
these installer issues.


http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/wp-content/uploads/eee-f9-4.png


http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/index.php/archives/my-eeexperience-with-fedora-9/



Regards,
Gerry

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-03-2008, 02:31 AM
"Jeff Spaleta"
 
Default F9 installation issues

On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Gerry Reno <greno@verizon.net> wrote:
> Other people are seeing a number of installer problems and they aren't using
> a 790 chipset. So I think it's pretty clear that my chipset has nothing to
> do with these installer issues.
>
> http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/wp-content/uploads/eee-f9-4.png
>
>
> http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/index.php/archives/my-eeexperience-with-fedora-9/

Uhm the eee is pretty specialized... i wouldn't necessarily hold that
up as 'typical'..

-jef

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-03-2008, 02:36 AM
Bill Nottingham
 
Default F9 installation issues

Gerry Reno (greno@verizon.net) said:
> Other people are seeing a number of installer problems and they aren't
> using a 790 chipset. So I think it's pretty clear that my chipset has
> nothing to do with these installer issues.

The only thing these situations have in common is that there's a traceback.
>From looking at the trace posted in that screenshot, it's a case of
bug 439633, which seems unrelated to the issues you are seeing.

Bill

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-03-2008, 06:59 PM
Gerry Reno
 
Default F9 installation issues

Bill Nottingham wrote:
Gerry Reno (greno@verizon.net) said:

Other people are seeing a number of installer problems and they aren't
using a 790 chipset. So I think it's pretty clear that my chipset has
nothing to do with these installer issues.



The only thing these situations have in common is that there's a traceback.
>From looking at the trace posted in that screenshot, it's a case of
bug 439633, which seems unrelated to the issues you are seeing.

Bill


I just ran a whole series of tests partitioning, creating arrays,
creating volume groups, creating filesystems, writing MBR's on this
machine and ran it a half dozen times - not one error. Here's the output
from a session:


Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

mdadm: size set to 195200K
mdadm: array /dev/md0 started.
mdadm: size set to 31999936K
mdadm: array /dev/md1 started.
mdadm: size set to 211952448K
mdadm: array /dev/md2 started.
mdadm: layout defaults to left-symmetric
mdadm: chunk size defaults to 64K
mdadm: size set to 244135616K
mdadm: array /dev/md3 started.
Physical volume "/dev/md1" successfully created
Physical volume "/dev/md2" successfully created
Physical volume "/dev/md3" successfully created
Volume group "VolGroup00" successfully created
Volume group "VolGroup01" successfully created
Volume group "VolGroup02" successfully created
Logical volume "LogVol00" created
Logical volume "LogVol00" created
Logical volume "LogVol00" created
Setting up swapspace version 1, size = 32765898 kB
LABEL=swap, UUID=f86b5d2e-0029-44bc-a18b-418a8decb840
mke2fs 1.40.8 (13-Mar-2008)
Filesystem label=/boot
OS type: Linux
Block size=1024 (log=0)
Fragment size=1024 (log=0)
48960 inodes, 195200 blocks
9760 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user
First data block=1
Maximum filesystem blocks=67371008
24 block groups
8192 blocks per group, 8192 fragments per group
2040 inodes per group
Superblock backups stored on blocks:
8193, 24577, 40961, 57345, 73729

Writing inode tables: done
Creating journal (4096 blocks): done
Writing superblocks and filesystem accounting information: done

This filesystem will be automatically checked every 22 mounts or
180 days, whichever comes first. Use tune2fs -c or -i to override.
mke2fs 1.40.8 (13-Mar-2008)
Warning: 256-byte inodes not usable on older systems
Filesystem label=
OS type: Linux
Block size=4096 (log=2)
Fragment size=4096 (log=2)
13254656 inodes, 52987904 blocks
2649395 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user
First data block=0
Maximum filesystem blocks=0
1618 block groups
32768 blocks per group, 32768 fragments per group
8192 inodes per group
Superblock backups stored on blocks:
32768, 98304, 163840, 229376, 294912, 819200, 884736, 1605632, 2654208,
4096000, 7962624, 11239424, 20480000, 23887872

Writing inode tables: done
Creating journal (32768 blocks): done
Writing superblocks and filesystem accounting information: done

This filesystem will be automatically checked every 35 mounts or
180 days, whichever comes first. Use tune2fs -c or -i to override.
mke2fs 1.40.8 (13-Mar-2008)
Warning: 256-byte inodes not usable on older systems
Filesystem label=
OS type: Linux
Block size=4096 (log=2)
Fragment size=4096 (log=2)
61038592 inodes, 244134912 blocks
12206745 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user
First data block=0
Maximum filesystem blocks=0
7451 block groups
32768 blocks per group, 32768 fragments per group
8192 inodes per group
Superblock backups stored on blocks:
32768, 98304, 163840, 229376, 294912, 819200, 884736, 1605632, 2654208,
4096000, 7962624, 11239424, 20480000, 23887872, 71663616, 78675968,
102400000, 214990848

Writing inode tables: done
Creating journal (32768 blocks): done
Writing superblocks and filesystem accounting information: done

This filesystem will be automatically checked every 24 mounts or
180 days, whichever comes first. Use tune2fs -c or -i to override.
[root@localhost ~]# df
Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/root 4128448 2230052 1898396 55% /
tmpfs 1684144 48 1684096 1% /dev/shm
/dev/sr1 703812 703812 0 100% /mnt/live
/dev/mapper/VolGroup01-LogVol00
208624168 191904 197834684 1% /mnt/sysimage
/dev/md0 189019 5664 173595 4% /mnt/sysimage/boot
/dev/mapper/VolGroup02-LogVol00
961215832 204572 912184280 1% /mnt/sysimage/var/backup
[root@localhost ~]#
[root@localhost ~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdh bs=512 count=1
1+0 records in
1+0 records out
512 bytes (512 B) copied, 0.0568583 s, 9.0 kB/s
[root@localhost ~]#




The problem is with Anaconda and not my system! I can load Windows,
Debian, Ubuntu.


I see no evidence of any problem with this machine as far as performing
installation activities to include 8 drives with LVM over RAID as
demonstrated with the simulated installation sessions that I just ran.


This session used all of the 8 drives and created three LVM Volume
Groups over three RAID arrays, created ext3 filesystems on the LV's and
mounted them and wrote a MBR into the boot drive. All with no errors. So
Anaconda is the problem.



Regards,
Gerry

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-04-2008, 04:24 PM
Gerry Reno
 
Default F9 installation issues

I just had another new unhandled exception occur during installation.
And the bug handler does not work. When you try to save to disk all you
see is a weird thin line in the dropdown and when you try to save it
using the network it says it cannot do it network unreachable. So I
switched over to console and I can see the install log but I cannot send
it over the network because it says network unreachable. Is there any
way to get networking working in the console during the anaconda install?


Regards,
Gerry

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:51 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org