Re: 2.6.16-1.2080_FC5 kernel panic (nv raid0, 86_64 architecture)

Terry Kemp wrote:
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 20:15 -0400, Debbie Deutsch wrote:

[SNIP]

In any case, here is what my /etc/fstab file says. (Note that I have
adjusted the white spaces to help with readability.)

/dev/VolGroup00/LogVol00 / ext3 defaults 1 1
LABEL=/boot /boot ext3 defaults 1 2
devpts /dev/pts devpts gid=5,mode=620 0 0
tmpfs /dev/shm tmpfs defaults 0 0
/dev/VolGroup00/LogVol02 /home ext3 defaults 1 2
proc /proc proc defaults 0 0
/dev/VolGroup00/LogVol03 /shared ext3 defaults 1 2
sysfs /sys sysfs defaults 0 0
/dev/VolGroup00/LogVol01 swap swap defaults 0 0

[SNIP]


OK our problems are a bit different (but probably attributed to the same
kernel issue).
Is this software Raid0?
Can you post the results of fdisk -l

The output of fdisk -l is as follows:

Disk /dev/sda: 320.0 GB, 320072933376 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 38913 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 * 1 13 104391 83 Linux
/dev/sda2 14 77826 625032922+ 8e Linux LVM

Disk /dev/sdb: 320.0 GB, 320072933376 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 38913 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

After providing the above results, fdisk complains that "Disk /dev/sdb
doesn't contain a valid partition table". That's not surprising.
/dev/sda and /dev/sdb are the two hard drives that together comprise my
system's RAID array. It's RAID 0. Although I have never before delved
into how partition information is written to hard drives in a RAID 0
array, it seems logical that it would go on the first drive and not be
duplicated on the other(s).

Just for fun, I also ran fdisk -l on the the RAID device itself
(/dev/mapper/nvidia_ehbjhcdb). Here is its output. This time there was
no error message.

Disk /dev/mapper/nvidia_ehbjhcdb: 640.1 GB, 640145864704 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 77826 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/mapper/nvidia_ehbjhcdb1 * 1 13 104391 83 Linux
/dev/mapper/nvidia_ehbjhcdb2 14 77826 625032922+ 8e Linux LVM

This looks fine to me, but as I have mentioned before, I am not an
expert when it comes to how Linux structures and stores partition
information.

Once again, thanks for your help. It's very much appreciated.

Debbie




--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Relevant Pages

  • Re: debian-installer: Guided partitioning breaks PERC2 Raid controllers
    ... broken partition tables that seem to mess with certain RAID ... it is creating perfectly fine LBA partition tables that are aligned to ... Then why was fdisk -l showing me that the boot volume the installer ... alignement. ...
    (Debian-User)
  • Re: debian-installer: Guided partitioning breaks PERC2 Raid controllers
    ... broken partition tables that seem to mess with certain RAID ... it is creating perfectly fine LBA partition tables that are aligned to ... Then why was fdisk -l showing me that the boot volume the installer ... It might be useful to have a "legacy dos-compatible MBR" option on the ...
    (Debian-User)
  • Re: Disk partitioning with SATA and RAID1
    ... I will need to partition these disks. ... Is RAID transparent to the partitioning process? ... Or should I FDISK each SATA drive individaully? ...
    (uk.comp.homebuilt)
  • Re: Fedora 9 Boot Problem
    ... error saying that there was an existing partition on the second disk. ... fdisk could see. ... Is there something that changed in the Fedora 9 install procedure where RAID ... Perhaps you need to give us info on this BIOS RAID ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: "Torn between two OS" - Solaris vs Linux
    ... So, after I get this screen of linux's fdisk, explain to me how I ... can see the content of the Solaris partition /dev/hda2, ... Command: p ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)