On Sat, 2006-06-24 at 11:34 +0100, centos@bathnetworks.com wrote:
On Sat, 2006-06-24 at 07:02 +0100, centos@bathnetworks.com wrote:
Hi all,
I've been wrestling with a problem with drdb and centos. I have successfully created one drbd resource, but when I try the create a
2nd,
I get an error on one of the nodes:
Lower device is already mounted. Command 'drbdsetup /dev/drbd1 disk /dev/hdd1 internal -1' terminated with exit code 20
The partition is not mounted from fstab etc and is newly created with parted after wiping this disk with dd.
On the node with the problem I see:
cat /proc/partitions major minor #blocks name
3 0 60034968 hda 3 1 514048 hda1 3 2 1534207 hda2 3 3 57986617 hda3 22 0 120060864 hdc 22 1 114688003 hdc1 22 64 117220824 hdd 22 65 114688003 hdd1 253 0 117219800 dm-0 253 1 114688003 dm-1 147 0 114556928 drbd0
On the other node the dm-0 and dm-1 do not occur. Being new to Linux,
I
am not sure where these come from. I have tried google, but nothing
makes
sense. This maybe a red herring, but dm-1 has the same number of
blocks
as hdd1 which I am trying to mount so I'm guessing that this is the cause of the problem.
As I have tried changing every thing I can except the mb/processor
and
reinstalling, I'm really stuck.
HELP Please.
Rob
I am not an expert on filesystems ... but dm-0 and dm-1 look like raid
0
or LVM partitions as they have 253 as their Major device number.
What does fdisk -l say for that drive (/dev/hdd).
Thanks for the reply.
As far as I am aware, there is no raid or lvm setup on the machine.
disk -l for hdd gives:
Disk /dev/hdd: 120.0 GB, 120034123776 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 14593 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/hdd1 1 14278 114688003+ 83 Linux
Rob
If you are not using raid on purpose, try removing the package dmraid like this:
rpm -e dmraid
then rebooting
Johnny,
Once again you are proving to be the man.
That fixed it. Both resources are up and the 2nd is syncing.
One question, I guess I don't need dmraid as I don't have a raid array, but why would it 'grab' the disk as it had never been set in the 1st place?
Once again thanks.
Rob