Bug 160622
Summary: | Installer does not upgrade from previous versions when there is more than one unlabled swap partition | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Jake <jake> | ||||||||
Component: | anaconda | Assignee: | Peter Jones <pjones> | ||||||||
Status: | CLOSED WORKSFORME | QA Contact: | |||||||||
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||||||
Priority: | medium | ||||||||||
Version: | 9 | CC: | chicks, ehartfield, geoiii, james.antill, jonpaterson, katzj, udovdh, wellandpower | ||||||||
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Regression, Reopened | ||||||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||||||
Hardware: | i386 | ||||||||||
OS: | Linux | ||||||||||
Whiteboard: | See Comment #18 for more info | ||||||||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||||||
Last Closed: | 2008-08-28 14:28:00 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||||||
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||||||
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||||||
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||||||
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||||||
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||||||
Embargoed: | |||||||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Jake
2005-06-16 06:17:08 UTC
Created attachment 115522 [details]
My /etc/fstab file
I'm not sure how useful it is, but here's my fstab file...
Forgot to mention, the (*) in comment 0 is what appears to be a critical error icon (a red circle with a white bar in the middle of it). Your RAID device shouldn't be labeled. If you use tune2fs or e2label, you should be able to remove the label. As far as I can tell, I don't have any labels: [root@waldo ~]# e2label /dev/md0 [root@waldo ~]# e2label /dev/hdg1 [root@waldo ~]# e2label /dev/hde1 [root@waldo ~]# (/dev/md0 is a mirror of partitions on hdg and hde, IIRC). Also, the error box from the installer doesn't tell me what label is suposedly duplicated... unless the duplicate is <NULL>. I still cannot determine where this mysterious duplicated label is coming from. As far as I can tell, none of my disks are labeled. I know I previously upgraded this machine from Red Hat 9 to Fedora Core 3 and do not recall making any configuration changes to the disks since that time. What confuses me the most is the fact that the error message does not specify what label is duplicated. Attempts to find a solution that would imply that this is, in fact, not a bug in anaconda have come up empty. Created attachment 115968 [details]
My /etc/raidtab file
I'm not sure if this file will help or not (probably not, but it can't hurt)
I have exactly the same problem. this is a FC3 system running software raid across /dev/md1,2,5. initially, it was right, my /boot mirrors were both mirrored. I have now removed the labels with e2label, but it will still not let me continue. I have checked all of the physical partitions and RAID volumes, and none have any labels. Happy to help - just tell me what to look for as it does not report which name / partition is at fault! It's worth pointing out that this box had all it's drives setup by anaconda around RHL-7.2, and FC1/FC2 were fine with it ... so this should be easy to reproduce. This is what I did (as I remember it) to get around this bug... 1. I initially had md0 and md1 over two drives hda and hdc. md0 was RAID1 /boot and md1 was RAID1 /. I also had 3 swap partitions (two on the hda drive on one on the hdc). 2. I eventaully ended up doing all of this (I tried bits of this and it only worked after I'd done all of it, although I got different errors from anaconda after doing some ... and I'd initially tried tune2fs -L '', but that didn't seem to help at all ... so I just used different labels/UUIDs): mdadm --fail /dev/md0 /dev/hdcX mdadm --stop /dev/md0 mdadm --zero-superblock /dev/hdcY mdadm --zero-superblock /dev/hdaX mdadm --fail /dev/md1 /dev/hdcY mdadm --stop /dev/md1 mdadm --zero-superblock /dev/hdcY mdadm --zero-superblock /dev/hdaY tune2fs -U time -L abcd0 -l /dev/hdcX tune2fs -U time -L abcd1 -l /dev/hdcY rm /etc/raidtab fdisk /dev/hda -- change 'auto raid type' to 'linux' -- ALSO remove all swap partitions (it still gave the multiple devices error) fdisk /dev/hdc -- dito. vi /etc/fstab -- remove any references to mdX and the swap partitions. reboot into installer (it should now list hda and hdc as seperate upgrade targets), and ask it to force upgrade the boot loader (as you don't have one, given you were booting off of RAID1 before). ...I now have all the old data on the hdc disk, and it should be easy to re-create the RAID1 paritions and tell them to re-sync ... but given the bootloader got changed to grub (which I'm not sure how well it boots of RAID1) and from the comments it's not obvious whatever is wrong with anaconda is going to work for FC5, I'm probably not going to bother. (In reply to comment #9) > ...I now have all the old data on the hdc disk, and it should be easy to > re-create the RAID1 paritions and tell them to re-sync ... but given the > bootloader got changed to grub (which I'm not sure how well it boots of RAID1) > and from the comments it's not obvious whatever is wrong with anaconda is going > to work for FC5, I'm probably not going to bother. > I can tell you from personal expierience that Grub does fine with /boot being part of a mirror. I have only one partition on my two disks so /dev/md0 is my only hard drive device. Grub reads the available kernels and boots into the chosen one just fine. FC5, however, is a valid concern... especially being that, AFAICT, the only response from anybody who may know the code was that my "RAID device shouldn't be labeled," which it isn't. I have the same problem. I have two software RAID partitions. Using e2label to change the labels of the software RAID partitions and their parts had no effect (still happy to boot up FC3 though). I agree that this is a showstopper. Changing severity to 'regression' as it did work fine with Fedora Core 3 (I had the same setup when I upgraded this box from RH 9 to Fedora Core 3). Jake, please run this and show us the output: for x in $(grep '^ ' /proc/partitions|awk '{ print $4 }') ; do echo $x: x$(e2label $x)x done I'm thinking that I must have done something wrong....
[root@waldo ~]# for x in $(grep '^ ' /proc/partitions|awk '{ print $4 }') ; do
> echo $x: x$(e2label $x)x
> done
e2label: No such file or directory while trying to open hde
Couldn't find valid filesystem superblock.
hde: xx
e2label: No such file or directory while trying to open hde1
Couldn't find valid filesystem superblock.
hde1: xx
e2label: No such file or directory while trying to open hde2
Couldn't find valid filesystem superblock.
hde2: xx
e2label: No such file or directory while trying to open hdg
Couldn't find valid filesystem superblock.
hdg: xx
e2label: No such file or directory while trying to open hdg1
Couldn't find valid filesystem superblock.
hdg1: xx
e2label: No such file or directory while trying to open hdg2
Couldn't find valid filesystem superblock.
hdg2: xx
e2label: No such file or directory while trying to open md0
Couldn't find valid filesystem superblock.
md0: xx
[root@waldo ~]#
Unless the e2label command should have '/dev/' added to it... then the output is: (Also, I didn't intend to change the severity or the status, though I'm going to assume Bugzilla automatically changes from NEEDINFO when more info is submitted). [root@waldo ~]# for x in $(grep '^ ' /proc/partitions|awk '{ print $4 }') ; do echo $x: x$(e2label /dev/$x)x; done e2label: Bad magic number in super-block while trying to open /dev/hde Couldn't find valid filesystem superblock. hde: xx hde1: xx e2label: Bad magic number in super-block while trying to open /dev/hde2 Couldn't find valid filesystem superblock. hde2: xx e2label: Bad magic number in super-block while trying to open /dev/hdg Couldn't find valid filesystem superblock. hdg: xx hdg1: xx e2label: Bad magic number in super-block while trying to open /dev/hdg2 Couldn't find valid filesystem superblock. hdg2: xx md0: xx [root@waldo ~]# I've been experiencing similar problems upgrading a desktop machine with no RAID from FC2 to FC4. Has anyone come up with any workarounds? I tried relabeling the two ext3 partitions but it didn't change anything. I also have this problem. I have two disks in RAID mirror. I am trying to upgrade the machine from RH 7.3 to FC 4. I was about to follow the full proceedure in comment #9 in order to finally update to FC4 when I noticed the following line: > -- ALSO remove all swap partitions (it still gave the multiple devices error) So I went out on a limb and just removed one of my swap partitions. I removed it from both /etc/fstab and using fdisk (fwiw, I removed the one on /dev/hde). I then tried the upgrade process again and sure enough, it worked. I also had a comment in my blog (http://www.steenhagen.us/~jake/blog/?p=62#comment-566) yesterday (the day after I updated) from somebody else who suceeded by labeling their swap partitions. Given this new evidence, I think the problem is actually related to having multiple swap partitions, not software RAID. I also struggled with this problem. Not only do you need to remove the swap partition from /dev/fstab, but you need to relabel the partition AND format it as something not swap (I used mke2fs) to get it to pass this point :( Any idea if this has been fixed in FC5? I don't have the same setup anymore (I had to reinstall for unrelated hardware issues and haven't renabled mirroring yet). Yes, I experienced this in FC5 with 2 swap partitions. The fix for me was as someone previously posted on Jake's page. From a running FC4, with swap partitions set up on hde9 and hdg9: swapoff /dev/hde9 swapoff /dev/hdg9 mkswap -L "swap_a" /dev/hde9 mkswap -L "swap_b" /dev/hdg9 swapon /dev/hde9 swapon /dev/hdg9 This report targets the FC3 or FC4 products, which have now been EOL'd. Could you please check that it still applies to a current Fedora release, and either update the target product or close it ? Thanks. I just attempted an upgrade from FC4 to FC6, and this bug still exists. The solution to the problem was to do whats described in Comment #21 to add labels to the swap partitions. I believe this is a bug in the "pyparted" package, which is incorrectly returning bogus labels for unlabeled swap partitions. Fedora Core 6 is no longer maintained. Can anybody reproduce this bug on Fedora 8? The information we've requested above is required in order to review this problem report further and diagnose/fix the issue if it is still present. Since there have not been any updates to the report since thirty (30) days or more since we requested additional information, we're assuming the problem is either no longer present in the current Fedora release, or that there is no longer any interest in tracking the problem. Setting status to "INSUFFICIENT_DATA". If you still experience this problem after updating to our latest Fedora release and can provide the information previously requested, please feel free to reopen the bug report. Thank you in advance. Still very much alive. Upgrading to FC9 from FC6 and hit this bug. Not massivly experience in Linux, please let me know the commands you need to see the output of and I will reply with all you need. TIA > echo $x: x$(e2label $x)x
> done
e2label: No such file or directory while trying to open sda
Couldn't find valid filesystem superblock.
sda: xx
e2label: No such file or directory while trying to open sda1
Couldn't find valid filesystem superblock.
sda1: xx
e2label: No such file or directory while trying to open sda2
Couldn't find valid filesystem superblock.
sda2: xx
e2label: No such file or directory while trying to open sda3
Couldn't find valid filesystem superblock.
sda3: xx
e2label: No such file or directory while trying to open sda4
Couldn't find valid filesystem superblock.
sda4: xx
e2label: No such file or directory while trying to open sda5
Couldn't find valid filesystem superblock.
sda5: xx
e2label: No such file or directory while trying to open dm-0
Couldn't find valid filesystem superblock.
dm-0: xx
e2label: No such file or directory while trying to open dm-1
Couldn't find valid filesystem superblock.
dm-1: xx
Created attachment 305371 [details]
Screenshot of the volumes on my system from the GUI.
Might help you to see what is what.
LogVol1 is /swap
LogVol0 is /
Need anything else please let me know.
While I no longer have this setup, it appears that Charlie is still experiencing this issue. Reopening on his behalf. Upgrade (from F8 to F9) also fails when swap is encrypted. Info on how the swap is configured is in /etc/crypttab. So should not be an issue. I've been unable to reproduce this bug with an F8 to F9 upgrade. Anybody who can reliably produce this, please attach your kickstart file. Re: Comment #30: F8 does not support encryption, so it is unsurprising that your upgrade failed. F8 ran with encrypted swap. (yes custom kernel but I guess teh Fedora kernels also support DM-encryption) The upgrade to F9 is the issue here. F9 should support encryption as you write. BTW: should I file a separate bug for Fedora 10 not upgrading F9 running on encrypted disks? If you didn't create the encrypted volume through anaconda, then there's really no way we're going to support upgrading a system installed on it. If you did, then that should work. Early dismissal (anaconda) doesn't help when all info lands in /etc/fstab. No anaconda, hard manual labour. Thanks for closing. I'll refer to this bug when we upgrade to F10. F9 does support a fully encrypted system in the initscripts so then there's no holding back anymore. |