Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 106480
LTC4800-RC1 dated 1004 doesn't recognize existing Linux DASD
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:06:58 EST
The following has be reported by IBM LTC:
RC1 dated 1004 doesn't recognize existing Linux DASDHardware Environment: z/990
Software Environment: RHEL-3 RC1
Steps to Reproduce:
1. install on image with existing DASD
Installer doesn't recognize existing Linux DASD. Reports it can not read the
partition table. We are forced to let the installer format all DASD. If we don't
it reports no devices availble for install. This is not acceptable for images
with existing DASD that is not required for the installation.
BTW this DASD was used by an existing RHEL 3 RC 1 image which had just been halted.
During the format the screen is flooded with the following message:
dasd: /dev/dasdb ( 94: 4),0201@07: dasd_format: device is open! expect errors.
After the format is done we got:
│ An unhandled exception has occurred. This # │
│ is most likely a bug. Please copy the full ▒ │
│ text of this exception and file a detailed ▒ │
│ bug report against anaconda at ▒ │
│ http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/ ▒ │
│ ▒ │
│ Traceback (most recent call last): ▒ │
│ File "/usr/bin/anaconda", line 1081, in ? ▒ │
│ intf.run(id, dispatch, configFileData) ▒ │
│ File "/usr/lib/anaconda/text.py", line ▒ │
│ 471, in run ▒ │
dasd: waiting for responses...
dasd(eckd): /dev/dasdb ( 94: 4),0201@07: (4kB blks): 2381760kB at 48kB/trk com
patible disk layout
dasdb:(nonl)/ : dasdb1
dasd: /dev/dasdb ( 94: 4),0201@07: BLKRRPART: device is open! expect errors.
The installer termintes.
Additional Information: Note: This only happens with mod 3 DASD or small vm
disks. It does not NOT happen with mod-9s pre existing LVM or RAID.
Can you elaborate on your comment about mod 3 vs. mod 9 DASD.
*** Bug 106724 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 106723 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
We should be back to recognizing existing DASD and just not recognizing dasd
which are freshly formatted from z/VM (reopening bug 106237 accordingly)
----- Additional Comments From email@example.com 2004-09-29 09:52 EDT -------
This bug is closed on the Red Hat side.
Shouldn't this be closed on the IBM side?
This can be closed on both sides. It works fine with RHEL3 U4 B1.
---- Additional Comments From firstname.lastname@example.org 2005-08-22 02:33 EDT -------
I think this one also should be closed.