Bug 181633

Summary: Installer writes to devices that are different than those specified.
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 Reporter: Heather Conway <conway_heather>
Component: kernelAssignee: Jan Glauber <jglauber>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: Brian Brock <bbrock>
Severity: high Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 4.0CC: jbaron, kannan_hariharan, kaufman_susan, murphy_shawn, perez-kolk_santiago, zaitcev
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: s390x   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-02-15 22:52:17 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:

Description Heather Conway 2006-02-15 16:58:19 UTC
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; EMC IS 55; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1)

Description of problem:
Began the installation of RHEL 4.0 U2 for s390x on a z800.  When prompted to enter the DASD device numbers, the DASD range specified was 600,601.  
However, instead of formatting and installing to DASD devices 600 and 601, the installer selected DASD devices 500 and 501.  Subsequently, the data on the 500 and 501 devices was overwritten by the dasdfmt command.  This is has caused data loss.
How and why did this happen?
Thanks.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
kernel-2.6.9-22.EL

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
Began the installation of RHEL 4.0 U2 for s390x on a z800.  
When prompted to enter the DASD device numbers, the DASD range specified was 600,601.  
Continue with the installation....

Actual Results:  The installer should have used the devices specified, 600 and 601, but it used 500 and 501 instead.  It should not select other devices for installation.

Expected Results:  The installer should have used the devices specified, 600 and 601, but it used 500 and 501 instead.  It should not select other devices for installation.

Additional info:

Comment 1 Jason Baron 2006-02-15 18:15:05 UTC
yikes not sure if this is a kernel or installer issues at this point.

Comment 2 Jason Baron 2006-02-15 18:17:26 UTC
*** Bug 181634 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 3 Jason Baron 2006-02-15 18:18:52 UTC
*** Bug 181635 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 4 Heather Conway 2006-02-15 19:10:35 UTC
Is the installer looking for the LUN/Unit Address to be 00?  If so, will the 
installer use the first Unit Address 00 that is accessible?
(Sorry about the duplicates.....I don't know how I managed that one.)
Thanks.

Comment 5 Heather Conway 2006-02-15 22:52:17 UTC
We figured out the problem - closing the issue.