task_partition & lvm ; FAI 4.0~beta2 exp36

[Mathieu Alorent]

Le lundi 22 novembre 2010 à 12:25 +0100, Michael Tautschnig a écrit :
> Hi Mât,
Hi Michael

> 
> Sorry for taking so long to respond.
no Problem :)

[...]

> 
> Well, no, that's not quite true - setup-storage hasn't yet removed the partition
> table or the like, these are really the first commands.
In our case, that's not setup-storage that removes the partition table,
but the hardware RAID controller, when we remove the old RAID and
re-make the same RAID level on the same disks.

> Looking at the other
> parts of your logs the partition /dev/sda9, which is what hosts the LVM, is in
> place!?
> 
> > PV/VG/LVremove(s) should be done after the command "parted -s /dev/sda
> > set 9 lvm on" and before trying to "pvcreate"... Do you understand ?
> > (maybe it's not really clear -> let me know)
> > 
> 
> I understand, and you would be completely right - if it were the case that the
> disk label had been wiped already...
As said above, the disk label has already been wiped.

> To me it seems that something about your
> volume group is wrong!? Is this system still available in this state, i.e., can
> you either re-run the install or just go right were it stopped?
Unfortunately no, this system isn't accessible anymore. But, maybe I can
reproduce "this state" if necessary.

> IMHO you should
> still be able to do vgdisplay -a, etc. and try to do the removal of the logical
> volume manually.
I agree with you, that's what I've done when the install hangs (just
after "parted -s /dev/sda set 9 lvm on".
But ordinary commands like lvremove, vgremove a,d pvremove didn't worked
well. (message "Incorrect metadata area header checksum"). So I finally
wiped LVM with "dd" directly in the partition.

> One question maybe: What is the state you expected this system
> to be in? Did you expect WOO_BASE to be there?
No, I expect at least all the olds LVs to be removed (no WOO_BASE /
WOO_LOG...) and the new parts KE / KE_LOGS to be created.

> Could it be that /dev/sda9 had
> been wiped in some earlier install and there's just some other information left
> that made setup-storage discover WOO_BASE?
I don't think sda9 has been wiped manually. In my opinion, just the disk
label has been destroyed. 

Now you asked me, I remember that "my user" told me "The 1st time the
install hanged, then then I've retried". (I don't have logs of the 1st
attempt)

This is certainly why setup-storage has found previous LV/VG/PV in the
logs I've sent.

Now I better understand why you said "I understand, and you would be
completely right - if it were the case that the disk label had been
wiped already..." ;)

> 
> Thanks a lot,
> Michael

Thx
Mât