Ages ago I recall having a similar problem to that as well. I think it was a bug with the preserver_reinstall flag not working correctly with LVM setups on fresh disks. Pretty sure I ended up writing a hack that executed early on in the classes phase to figure out if the disk was lacking a label (partition table) and then creating one and setting the reinstall flag to force the disk layout down. Unfortunately I don't easily have access to that code anymore, else I'd share it. Also, it may no longer be applicable. setup-storage has changed a lot since then.
Cheers, Brian On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Justin Cattle <j...@ocado.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > Are you 100% sure you tried it on a "fresh" disk that was really clean? > It defiantly feels like there is some metadata or something remaining in > some blocks on the disk. > > When FAI fails, are you able check for things like md info, dm info, lvm > info and the like? > > You may have to do some dmsetup remove, vgremove or pvremove. > wiptefs is also a good utility at clearing metadata, run it against any > partitions before removing them. > Then remove partitions with dd, put some zeros on the first few Mg of the > disk. > > > > > Cheers, > Just > > On 4 January 2018 at 13:47, Andreas Heinlein <aheinl...@gmx.com> wrote: > >> Am 03.01.2018 um 17:28 schrieb Holger Parplies: >> > Hi, >> > >> > Andreas Heinlein wrote on 2018-01-03 13:53:40 +0100 [setup-storage >> fails on blank disk]: >> >> [...] >> >> I have encountered a problem with setup-storage which occurs only when >> >> the disk is blank, i.e. wiped with nwipe/dban or brand new. It then >> >> fails on creating the LVM; running 'pvcreate' returns 'cannot open >> >> /dev/sda5 exclusively'. >> > this is probably unrelated, but is there any reason to put the LVM PV >> inside >> > a "logical" volume? DOS extended partitions seem to be the worst hack >> ever >> > invented to get around a limitation in a bad design, yet they repeatedly >> > and apparently unnecessarily pop up in quoted disk_configs: >> > >> >> [...] >> >> This is your disk_config file: >> >> # generic disk configuration for one small disk >> >> # disk size from 500Mb up to what you can buy today >> >> # >> >> # <type> <mountpoint> <size in mb> <fstype> <mount options> [extra >> options] >> >> >> >> disk_config disk1 disklabel:msdos bootable:1 preserve_lazy:6 >> align-at:1M fstabkey:uuid >> >> primary /boot 300 ext4 rw createopts="-O >> ^64bit,^metadata_csum" >> >> logical - 29500-30000 - - >> >> logical /media/daten 1024- ext4 acl createopts="-O >> ^64bit,^metadata_csum -L Daten" >> > I count three partitions, which would work perfectly with primary >> partitions >> > (furthermore, you are using LVM to have an arbitrary number of named and >> > dynamic "volumes" (i.e. partitions) anyway, so if you needed more, LVM >> would >> > be the superior mechanism; of course, your specific requirements may >> vary). >> > Ok, you are preserving a logical partition, so in this particular case >> you'd >> > actually need to stick with logical partitions, but the partition in >> question >> > is ext4, not FAT-based, so it doesn't appear to be a legacy Windoze >> issue. >> > >> > My point: am I missing something, and there is some obscure benefit of >> putting >> > an LVM container within an extended-partition-container (such as hiding >> it >> > from something), or is it simply a common misconception that you for >> some >> > reason cannot or should not put an LVM PV (or even several individual >> native >> > Linux partitions - such as /, /var and /tmp) into primary partitions - >> > assuming you only need upto four of them (and, obviously, assuming you >> are >> > still using MSDOS partition tables)? >> > >> > Or, differently: for a *blank disk*, you obviously won't be preserving >> sda6, >> > and you probably aren't referencing it by partition number >> ("fstabkey:uuid"), >> > so does using 'primary' instead of 'logical' for all three partitions >> change >> > anything concerning the error you are experiencing? >> > >> > Hope that helps someone (perhaps me ;-) ... >> > >> > Regards, >> > Holger >> Hello, >> >> yes, you are right - in some way, this *is* a legacy windows issue that >> has developed over time. In fact, the preserved partition once was a FAT >> partition as long as we had dualboot installations on these machines. We >> finally removed the dualboot two or three years ago and chose to format >> this partition ext4 instead. Why we didn't move to primary partitions or >> put it within the LVM at that time - I don't know. >> >> On the other hand, up to now we had no problems with that, so no urge to >> change anything. If you think it might help, I could try changing this. >> >> Bye, >> Andreas >> > > > Notice: This email is confidential and may contain copyright material of > members of the Ocado Group. Opinions and views expressed in this message > may not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of the members of the > Ocado Group. > > > > If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately and > delete all copies of this message. Please note that it is your > responsibility to scan this message for viruses. > > > > Fetch and Sizzle are trading names of Speciality Stores Limited and Fabled > is a trading name of Marie Claire Beauty Limited, both members of the Ocado > Group. > > > > References to the “Ocado Group” are to Ocado Group plc (registered in > England and Wales with number 7098618) and its subsidiary undertakings (as > that expression is defined in the Companies Act 2006) from time to time. > The registered office of Ocado Group plc is Buildings One & Two, Trident > Place, Mosquito Way, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9UL. >