Red Hat Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
|Summary:||[RHEL5 Beta1] anaconda: multipath device name is reverse order of LUN number.|
|Product:||Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5||Reporter:||Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda>|
|Component:||anaconda||Assignee:||Peter Jones <pjones>|
|Status:||CLOSED ERRATA||QA Contact:|
|Version:||5.0||CC:||jlaska, j-nomura, jnomura, k-ueda, kueda, tao|
|Fixed In Version:||RHBA-2007-0644||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2007-11-07 12:18:07 EST||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Bug Depends On:|
|Bug Blocks:||228988, 227613|
Description Kiyoshi Ueda 2006-09-27 17:53:11 EDT
Description of problem: Installer names misleading device name for multipath devices. It seems to be reverse order of LUN number. (e.g. In 4 LUN environment, LUN#0 is named as "mpath3", LUN#1 is named as "mpath2", ..., LUN#3 is name as "mpath0".) Version-Release number of selected component: anaconda-184.108.40.206-1 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: Actual results: Expected results: Additional info:
Comment 1 RHEL Product and Program Management 2006-10-26 15:45:23 EDT
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux major release. Product Management has requested further review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for potential inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Major release. This request is not yet committed for inclusion.
Comment 4 Peter Jones 2007-06-27 10:15:51 EDT
Is this still a problem? As far as I know this was fixed long, long ago. Please retest.
Comment 5 David Cantrell 2007-06-27 11:20:37 EDT
Bryn Reeves says this is fixed in the 5.1 nightly trees, but is still dependent on hardware. Certain systems are forced to initialize devices in a specific order and that may not coincide with the LUN order. However, all hardware aside, the software does init devices in LUN order. As soon as hardware comes in, that order is changed up. Not much we can do about that.
Comment 6 Kiyoshi Ueda 2007-06-27 11:52:17 EDT
Yes, I confirmed this is fixed on our storages.
Comment 9 errata-xmlrpc 2007-11-07 12:18:07 EST
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem described in this bug report. This report is therefore being closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information on the solution and/or where to find the updated files, please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report if the solution does not work for you. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2007-0644.html