I have 2 questions dealing with 2 different kickstart files.
1) my kickstart sections for RAID disk setup and kickstart reports it cannot find sda. Why is that. sda is there and works.
clearpart --all --initlabel part raid.01 --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="raid" --onpart=sda1 --size=20000 part swap --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="swap" --onpart=sda2 --size=4000 part raid.02 --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="raid" --grow --onpart=sda3 --size=1 part raid.03 --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="raid" --onpart=sdb1 --size=20000 part swap --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="swap" --onpart=sdb2 --size=4000 part raid.04 --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="raid" --grow --onpart=sdb3 --size=1 raid / --bytes-per-inode=4096 --device=md0 --fstype="ext3" --level=1 raid.01 raid.03 raid / --bytes-per-inode=4096 --device=md1 --fstype="ext3" --level=1 raid.02 raid.04
2) my kickstart section for normally single disk setup. However with 2 disks present in box it put / on sda and /home on sdb. Is there a way to put it ALL on sda??? If there is a second disk I want it left alone.
clearpart --all --initlabel part / --fstype ext3 --size=20000 --asprimary part swap --size=4000 --asprimary part /home --fstype ext3 --size=100 --grow --asprimary
THanks,
Jerry
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 at 2:43pm, Jerry Geis wrote
I have 2 questions dealing with 2 different kickstart files.
- my kickstart sections for RAID disk setup and kickstart reports it cannot
find sda. Why is that. sda is there and works.
clearpart --all --initlabel part raid.01 --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="raid" --onpart=sda1
Is sda already partitioned?
raid / --bytes-per-inode=4096 --device=md0 --fstype="ext3" --level=1 raid.01 raid.03 raid / --bytes-per-inode=4096 --device=md1 --fstype="ext3" --level=1 raid.02 raid.04
If that's cut and pasted from your ks file, then you're requesting the same partition twice...
- my kickstart section for normally single disk setup. However with 2 disks
present in box it put / on sda and /home on sdb. Is there a way to put it ALL on sda??? If there is a second disk I want it left alone.
clearpart --all --initlabel part / --fstype ext3 --size=20000 --asprimary part swap --size=4000 --asprimary part /home --fstype ext3 --size=100 --grow --asprimary
Add --ondisk=sda to each line.
I refer to http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-5-manual/en-US/RHEL510/In... quite often...
Jerry Geis wrote:
I have 2 questions dealing with 2 different kickstart files.
- my kickstart sections for RAID disk setup and kickstart reports it
cannot find sda. Why is that. sda is there and works.
clearpart --all --initlabel part raid.01 --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="raid" --onpart=sda1 --size=20000
I've had issues with onpart in the past. I had to use ondisk and trust the anaconda to put the partitions in a good place.
- my kickstart section for normally single disk setup. However with 2
disks present in box it put / on sda and /home on sdb. Is there a way to put it ALL on sda??? If there is a second disk I want it left alone.
clearpart --all --initlabel part / --fstype ext3 --size=20000 --asprimary part swap --size=4000 --asprimary part /home --fstype ext3 --size=100 --grow --asprimary
Use --ondisk to specify which disk. Also, if there is a 2nd disk, it will lose it's partition table because of your clearpart. You may want ot explore an ignoredisk command.
part of my kickstart file is now:
clearpart --all --initlabel part --ondisk=sda raid.01 --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="raid" --onpart=sda1 --size=20000 part --ondisk=sda swap --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="swap" --onpart=sda2 --size=4000 part --ondisk=sda raid.02 --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="raid" --onpart=sda3 --size=1 --grow part --ondisk=sdb raid.03 --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="raid" --onpart=sdb1 --size=20000 part --ondisk=sdb swap --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="swap" --onpart=sdb2 --size=4000 part --ondisk=sdb raid.04 --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="raid" --onpart=sdb3 --size=1 --grow raid / --bytes-per-inode=4096 --device=md0 --fstype="ext3" --level=1 raid.01 raid.03 raid /home --bytes-per-inode=4096 --device=md1 --fstype="ext3" --level=1 raid.02 raid.04
I changed the config to use --ondisk above and at install I get a message saying:
"Unable to locate partition sda1 to use for ." Press OK to reboot your system.
The above is the correct message. I did not leave any words out.
It looks good to me. What might I have wrong? sda works just fine when not installing RAID.
Jerry
Jerry Geis wrote:
part of my kickstart file is now:
clearpart --all --initlabel part --ondisk=sda raid.01 --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="raid" --onpart=sda1 --size=20000 part --ondisk=sda swap --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="swap" --onpart=sda2 --size=4000 part --ondisk=sda raid.02 --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="raid" --onpart=sda3 --size=1 --grow part --ondisk=sdb raid.03 --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="raid" --onpart=sdb1 --size=20000 part --ondisk=sdb swap --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="swap" --onpart=sdb2 --size=4000 part --ondisk=sdb raid.04 --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="raid" --onpart=sdb3 --size=1 --grow raid / --bytes-per-inode=4096 --device=md0 --fstype="ext3" --level=1 raid.01 raid.03 raid /home --bytes-per-inode=4096 --device=md1 --fstype="ext3" --level=1 raid.02 raid.04
I changed the config to use --ondisk above and at install I get a message saying:
"Unable to locate partition sda1 to use for ." Press OK to reboot your system.
The above is the correct message. I did not leave any words out.
It looks good to me. What might I have wrong? sda works just fine when not installing RAID.
I think you might be missing a little something in there, like /boot?
-Ross
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 at 4:32pm, Ross S. W. Walker wrote
I think you might be missing a little something in there, like /boot?
/boot is not required to be its own partition. In the days of yore, when BIOSes couldn't boot from partitions the crossed the 1024 cylinder barrier, it made sense to have a small /boot as your first partition. These days? Not so much.
Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 at 4:32pm, Ross S. W. Walker wrote
I think you might be missing a little something in there, like /boot?
/boot is not required to be its own partition. In the days of yore, when BIOSes couldn't boot from partitions the crossed the 1024 cylinder barrier, it made sense to have a small /boot as your first partition. These days? Not so much.
Ah, thanks. I was under the impression that anaconda required a /boot, like anaconda requires a swap partition which makes it hard if you want to setup a swapfile instead later during the install.
I also use LVM for my installs, which I believe needs a /boot since grub can't as of yet boot off of a LV (and forget it if that LV's VG is on a MD), so I hadn't seen a kickstart that didn't have a /boot.
-Ross
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 at 4:32pm, Ross S. W. Walker wrote
I think you might be missing a little something in there, like /boot?
/boot is not required to be its own partition. In the days of yore, when BIOSes couldn't boot from partitions the crossed the 1024 cylinder barrier, it made sense to have a small /boot as your first partition. These days? Not so much.
There are still good reasons to keep it separate. For example you may want / on something grub doesn't understand like LVM or raid (raid1 can pretend it isn't, but other levels won't work. Or you may want to move your / to a drive other than the one that boots.
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008, Les Mikesell wrote:
Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 at 4:32pm, Ross S. W. Walker wrote
I think you might be missing a little something in there, like /boot?
/boot is not required to be its own partition. In the days of yore, when BIOSes couldn't boot from partitions the crossed the 1024 cylinder barrier, it made sense to have a small /boot as your first partition. These days? Not so much.
There are still good reasons to keep it separate. For example you may want / on something grub doesn't understand like LVM or raid (raid1 can pretend it isn't, but other levels won't work. Or you may want to move your / to a drive other than the one that boots.
I used to use the separate /boot partition, but quit when the 1024 sector problem was solved, mostly because OS upgrades or installation of alternate distributions in a different partition for ``/'' would frequently result in a less than useful /boot setup. Having /boot on the ``/'' file system isn't as vulnerable to poorly written installation and upgrade scripts.
Being a belts and suspenders guy, I don't boot from raid or lvm file systems as there are too many ways things can go bad.
I generally build systems with two identical ext3 partitions for ``/'' and ``/backroot', swap, and the remainder in ``/home''. Once the system is installed and configured, the ``/'' is copied to ``/backroot'' with the ``/backroot/etc/fstab'' file edited appropriately and ``/boot/grub/menu.lst'' set up to allow booting from the ``/backroot'' partion (which isn't normally mounted).
This provides the ability to boot a damaged system from ``/backroot'', and a fallback position if an upgrade goes south by refreshing the copy just prior to doing the upgrade.
Bill -- INTERNET: bill@celestial.com Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC URL: http://www.celestial.com/ PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees! -- Emiliano Zapata.
On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 15:50 -0700, Bill Campbell wrote:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008, Les Mikesell wrote:
Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 at 4:32pm, Ross S. W. Walker wrote
<snip>
I used to use the separate /boot partition, but quit when the 1024 sector problem was solved, mostly because OS upgrades or installation of alternate distributions in a different partition for ``/'' would frequently result in a less than useful /boot setup. Having /boot on the ``/'' file system isn't as vulnerable to poorly written installation and upgrade scripts.
I still use it just because I can mount it ro, if I want to keep it mounted and that reduces chance of FS corruption if we should an unexpected disastrous event. Although I don't anymore, I also used to have separate ro partitions for the infrequently changing "critical" parts of the root file system. With the robustness of things these days, I've found that less useful.
But because I still do a lot of dinking with stuff, the separate root is worthwhile (see below).
Being a belts and suspenders guy, I don't boot from raid or lvm file systems as there are too many ways things can go bad.
Only through the grace of high metabolism, I'm still just a belt guy, even at my advanced physical age. Mentally, I'm suspenders sometimes though.
I generally build systems with two identical ext3 partitions for ``/'' and ``/backroot', swap, and the remainder in ``/home''. Once the system is installed and configured, the ``/'' is copied to ``/backroot'' with the ``/backroot/etc/fstab'' file edited appropriately and ``/boot/grub/menu.lst'' set up to allow booting from the ``/backroot'' partion (which isn't normally mounted).
I do the same with one minor change, ignoring naming conventions. All systems have two bootable drives and my backup boot and base root are duplicated, with minor mods, to the second drive. That gives me a fallback not only for my screw ups, but also for HD failures.
This provides the ability to boot a damaged system from ``/backroot'', and a fallback position if an upgrade goes south by refreshing the copy just prior to doing the upgrade.
Great minds think .... I know, I know. Trite.
Bill
<snip sig stuff>
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 at 4:23pm, Jerry Geis wrote
clearpart --all --initlabel part --ondisk=sda raid.01 --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="raid" --onpart=sda1 --size=20000 part --ondisk=sda swap --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="swap" --onpart=sda2 --size=4000 part --ondisk=sda raid.02 --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="raid" --onpart=sda3 --size=1 --grow part --ondisk=sdb raid.03 --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="raid" --onpart=sdb1 --size=20000 part --ondisk=sdb swap --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="swap" --onpart=sdb2 --size=4000 part --ondisk=sdb raid.04 --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="raid" --onpart=sdb3 --size=1 --grow raid / --bytes-per-inode=4096 --device=md0 --fstype="ext3" --level=1 raid.01 raid.03 raid /home --bytes-per-inode=4096 --device=md1 --fstype="ext3" --level=1 raid.02 raid.04
I changed the config to use --ondisk above and at install I get a message saying:
"Unable to locate partition sda1 to use for ." Press OK to reboot your system.
Remove the 'onpart's. You can't use 'clearpart' and 'onpart' together. The manual says onpart tells anaconda to "Put the partition on the *already existing* device", but clearpart *removes* any already extant devices.
Jerry Geis wrote:
part of my kickstart file is now:
clearpart --all --initlabel part --ondisk=sda raid.01 --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="raid" --onpart=sda1 --size=20000 part --ondisk=sda swap --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="swap" --onpart=sda2 --size=4000 part --ondisk=sda raid.02 --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="raid" --onpart=sda3 --size=1 --grow part --ondisk=sdb raid.03 --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="raid" --onpart=sdb1 --size=20000 part --ondisk=sdb swap --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="swap" --onpart=sdb2 --size=4000 part --ondisk=sdb raid.04 --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="raid" --onpart=sdb3 --size=1 --grow raid / --bytes-per-inode=4096 --device=md0 --fstype="ext3" --level=1 raid.01 raid.03 raid /home --bytes-per-inode=4096 --device=md1 --fstype="ext3" --level=1 raid.02 raid.04
I changed the config to use --ondisk above and at install I get a message saying:
"Unable to locate partition sda1 to use for ." Press OK to reboot your system.
The above is the correct message. I did not leave any words out.
It looks good to me. What might I have wrong? sda works just fine when not installing RAID.
Jerry
I remove --onpart so I only have --ondisk and it seems to be working... Didnt like both I guess.
Thanks for the hint.
Jerry
Jerry Geis wrote:
I changed the config to use --ondisk above and at install I get a message saying:
"Unable to locate partition sda1 to use for ." Press OK to reboot your system.
I'm guessing it is because the partition tables don't exist. It seems that --onpart doesn't actually create partitions. I'm not sure if that is design or a bug, I know that onpart used to create the partitions.
So get rid og the onpart. Trust anaconda to put the partitions on the right spot on the disk.
In article 47ED53AA.6040000@pagestation.com, Jerry Geis geisj@pagestation.com wrote:
part of my kickstart file is now:
clearpart --all --initlabel part --ondisk=sda raid.01 --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="raid" --onpart=sda1 --size=20000 part --ondisk=sda swap --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="swap" --onpart=sda2 --size=4000 part --ondisk=sda raid.02 --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="raid" --onpart=sda3 --size=1 --grow part --ondisk=sdb raid.03 --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="raid" --onpart=sdb1 --size=20000 part --ondisk=sdb swap --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="swap" --onpart=sdb2 --size=4000 part --ondisk=sdb raid.04 --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="raid" --onpart=sdb3 --size=1 --grow raid / --bytes-per-inode=4096 --device=md0 --fstype="ext3" --level=1 raid.01 raid.03 raid /home --bytes-per-inode=4096 --device=md1 --fstype="ext3" --level=1 raid.02 raid.04
Leaving aside the ondisk/onpart issue which has been answered, I see you are keeping the swap partitions as individual devices.
I prefer to raid1 the swap as well, just like the filesystems. If you lose a disk and some memory is swapped out to the failed disk, your system will very likely crash. If swap is mirrored too, the disk failure should not crash the system, since the same data is on the working disk.
Cheers Tony
-
Bill Campbell -
Jerry Geis -
Joshua Baker-LePain -
Les Mikesell -
Milton Calnek -
Ross S. W. Walker -
tony＠softins.clara.co.uk -
William L. Maltby