Re: Again: LILO 22.5.9 still gives Error: duplicated volume ID

From: JohnInSD At san DOT rr dot COM (bitbucket_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 08/18/04 

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 14:55:27 GMT

First, I don't know what version of LILO you are running. The current version
is 22.5.9.

The 2.4 kernels had serious problems with hardware RAID1 support; but there
was a workaround for the IDE raid. I've not seen SCSI raid before (hardware).

After running /sbin/lilo, there should be no VolumeID conflicts, as the boot
installer resolves conflicts automatically (except on Windows NT dual boot
systems). Conflicts on disks newly added to a system are usually just a
residue of the low-level format of the disk.

On IDE systems, with hardware IDE raid controllers, the kernel sees not only
the RAID1 array, but also the two underlying disks. The workaround is to
declare the underlying disks "inaccessible".

The LILO site has images of two diagnostic diskettes; #1 might shed some more
light on your boot-time environment. It may be that the BIOS is making all
three disks visible; whereas, only the RAID1 array and SCSI ID6 should be
visible.

    http://lilo.go.dyndns.org/pub/linux/lilo/boot

Get the instructions, and the "diag1.img" file.

--John

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:10:12 +0200, Nicola Pedrozzi <nikita@swissgalaxy.ch>
wrote:

>>> LILO:
>>> Error: Duplicated Volume ID
>>
>>
>> But the boot proceeded, didn't it?
>
>Yes, it does proceed.
>
>
>> After adding the disk, re-running /sbin/lilo should resolve the duplicated
>> Volume ID problem.
>>
>
>No, it does not resolve, I don't seem to be able to fix this.
>
>
>>>After the red screen I managed to get "BIOS data check bypassed"
>>>by adding:
>>>
>>> suppress-boot-time-BIOS-data
>>
>>
>> This line does not relate to the duplicate Volume ID problem.. It is also not
>> a good idea to bypass the check. LILO will do this automatically, if
>> necessary, as you describe below.
>
>So, you suggest to remove this line?
>
>
>> The second boot is needed to get past this error. This is by design.
>
>ok ;^(
>
>
>> Can you see 2 or 3 SCSI disks? You should NOT be able to see the mirror of
>> sda. A HW RAID array is one disk, as far as anyone is concerned.
>
>Correct: I can see 2 disks /dev/sda is master-mirror-disk (SCSI ID 1),
>and /dev/sdb is the spare-disk (SCSI ID 6).
>
>
>> Are your sure these are for disks 1 and 6? Hardware RAID gives LILO the fits,
>> as the kernel support for it is still lacking.
>>
>> The contents of /proc/partitions would shed more light on the problem.
>
>Yes, in /proc/partitions I see only sda and sdb partitions.
>
>By looking at /proc/scsi/scsi I see that System Disk is mapped to
>SCSI channel 00, ID 00, lun 00 and Spare disk is mapped to 00:01:00.
>This ID mapping, I guess, is done by hardware RAID since my jumper
>settings was 1, 2, 6.
>
>Can it be that somehow RAID-mapped-ID-1 (jumpered-id-disk 6) conflicts
>with RAID-mapped-0 (jumpered-id-disk 1)???
>
>Maybe worth trying to physically set SCSI id higher than 1?
>(better higher than 7? in case I add disks in future)
>
>
>
>Thanks nIc
>______________________________
>
>Nicola Pedrozzi
>IT Manager
>Oval engineering sagl
>Via Daro 6a
>CH-6500 Bellinzona
>
>nikita@oval.ch
>nikita@swissgalaxy.ch
>Tel: +41 91 825 42 85
>Fax: +41 91 826 12 34
>
>http://www.oval.ch
>http://www.immogalaxy.ch

Relevant Pages

  • Re: IBM in talks to buy Sun
    ... To compensate for slower speeds, double the number of file servers behind a load-balancer, and ultimately the number of disks. ... To compensate for lower reliability (but consumer grade hardware is getting better), assume a doubled disk replacement rate in the RAIDs. ... Parallelism in various forms (multiprocessors, load-balanced clusters, RAID, and so forth) make consumer grade hardware able to "add up" to be equivalent to higher-grade hardware. ... It'd be interesting to compare that hard data to comparable data for high-end drives - except oh wait, there isn't any, because nobody's ever used them in that kind of volume. ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
  • Re: hardware raid 1, 5 question
    ... is raid 1 any faster, slower or the same as raid 5? ... complicated mode of operation, but a soft RAID1 ... RAID5 performance really depends on a couple things. ... recommend using four disks. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware)
  • Re: Advice on raid/lvm
    ... joined with LVM? ... Capacity can be dynamically added with pairs of disks. ... Raid1 is conceptually simple compared to any other raid level, ... raid1 vs raid 10 i think i would say that raid1 is easier to understand since it is 50% less complex. ...
    (Debian-User)
  • Re: T2000 SAS RAID controller fun and games
    ... We had created the hardware raid volumes before installing solaris and ... 2/ moved a pre-installed disks over to the new hardware in bay0 ... 4/ Verified we could see the disk/volume by selecting the raid device ...
    (comp.unix.solaris)
  • Re: IBM in talks to buy Sun
    ... To compensate for slower speeds, double the number of file servers behind a load-balancer, and ultimately the number of disks. ... To compensate for lower reliability (but consumer grade hardware is getting better), assume a doubled disk replacement rate in the RAIDs. ... Parallelism in various forms (multiprocessors, load-balanced clusters, RAID, and so forth) make consumer grade hardware able to "add up" to be equivalent to higher-grade hardware. ... Google run their data centres in exactly this way, using vast amounts of cheap commodity hardware. ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)