I didn't think that a new mkinitrd would be in testing for a few more days.
The lvm1 vs lvm2 thing shouldn't matter unless I'm trying to setup root on lvm. And I'm going to hold off on that for a couple weeks to wait for fixes to make their way into testing. But I might try get boot working on raid1. Josha Foust -----Original Message----- From: Charles Steinkuehler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 12:16 PM To: Josha Foust Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Problems/workarounds for install to root on LVM on RAID Josha Foust wrote: > A rather serious problem I encountered when running LVM on RAID is that as > of a few days ago, RAID wasn't automatically activated on startup. This > caused LVM to find its partitions inside the RAID partition and mount one of > those. This is obviously a horrible thing to do as it breaks your RAID > mirroring and thus you end up with a corrupt RAID device when you do bring > it up. Although if you know what you are doing and what happened you could > probably recover from it. The lvm lists say you need to put an exclusion in > the device section lvm config for the underlying partitions or drives that > make up the raid device. There is suppose to be a patch floating around on > the lvm list to automatically skip partitions that have a partition type of > raid autodetect as the default behavior. This seems to be working with the May 26th image, although I'll verify once I get a working system again (I'm currently wiping the disks so I can start from scratch and verify everything works from 'bare metal'). Are you sure you got the latest mkinitrd, and coerced it into not running LVM1? I think some of the LVM and mkinitrd stuff changed right around the 24th/25th time frame (based on trolling lvm d-i bugs). <snip> > The raid device also shows it only being 2.0 GB in size when the partition > underneath it is 79GB. If you're referring to the display in partman, I saw similar behavior, which I attributed to a 'wrapping' problem. My 150G raid partition was listed as some small number of MB on one line, and the correct size on another. I'll note details when I re-install. > This was all on the 20040524 build. I used the May 25 & May 26 builds...not sure what (if anything) changed from the 24th. -- Charles Steinkuehler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
