No this is not the same server as the otehr bug a reported. Two separate problems. I am attempting to upgrade a fc6 server to an fc7 server. The server is presently running a single IDE drive. It is directly partitioned for linux without using lvm. When I try and upgrade it, (accross the network, httpd) the system tells me that sda does not contain a valid partition table and asks me if I want to initialize it. However if I fc7 boot to rescue mode and look at the sda partition table I see the correct data.
Hi, is the exact error message what is shown in bug 236743 ? Are partition labels present for all partitions ? http://docs.fedoraproject.org/release-notes/f7/en_US/sn-Installer.html#id3152635
Right error message. It appeasr to be a different problem /dev/hda3: LABEL="/" UUID="63e19fe3-b294-454d-99fc-83676c961182" SEC_TYPE="ext2" TYPE="ext3" /dev/hda1: LABEL="/boot" UUID="cb871120-68ab-4e2e-a667-e55384f61672" SEC_TYPE="ext2" TYPE="ext3" /dev/hda2: LABEL="SWAP-hda2" TYPE="swap" fdisk gives Disk /dev/hda: 20.0 GB, 20020396032 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 2434 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/hda1 * 1 13 104391 83 Linux /dev/hda2 14 395 3068415 82 Linux swap / Solaris /dev/hda3 396 2434 16378267+ 83 Linux
Does the existing system mount these filesystems via these labels; what is the contents of /etc/fstab and /boot/grub/grub.conf ?
This is the way they should be mounted. Everything is working under fc6 fine. LABEL=/ / ext3 defaults 1 1 LABEL=/boot /boot ext3 defaults 1 2 devpts /dev/pts devpts gid=5,mode=620 0 0 tmpfs /dev/shm tmpfs defaults 0 0 proc /proc proc defaults 0 0 sysfs /sys sysfs defaults 0 0 LABEL=SWAP-hda2 swap swap defaults 0 0 default=0 timeout=5 splashimage=(hd0,0)/grub/splash.xpm.gz hiddenmenu title Fedora Core (2.6.22.1-32.fc6) root (hd0,0) kernel /vmlinuz-2.6.22.1-32.fc6 ro root=LABEL=/ rhgb quiet initrd /initrd-2.6.22.1-32.fc6.img title Fedora Core (2.6.20-1.2962.fc6) root (hd0,0) kernel /vmlinuz-2.6.20-1.2962.fc6 ro root=LABEL=/ rhgb quiet initrd /initrd-2.6.20-1.2962.fc6.img
Agreed. The FC6 grub/fstab look fine. There was another common problem: the new libata driver began enforcing the host protected area of hard disks, and hence crying foul if the existing partitions on the disk extended into the protected area. See: {HPA} http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bugs/F7Common#head-65f561a07fdf2889f310f3aac0ab0f984faf3e9c Does passing that param to the installer get past the error ? If not, there was an installer updates.img generated but not released {from what I can see}, but I do not know if this has a workaround. This is available from: http://people.redhat.com/clumens/f7-updates.img with a how to use at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Anaconda/Updates
The first option fixed the problem. However it took a bit to figure out how to make this work from the information in this note. The instrucitons were to add libata.ignore_hpa=1 to boot:linux No can do as this doesn't come up from the cdrom install. (rescue disk) instead you highlight the first option press tab to get to edit mode add the "libata.ignore_hpa=1 " at the end of the line and hit return. Now everything is hunky dorry so far. The upgrade is running like a champ. Hopefully it will now boot when it is done. (another problem I have that has yet to be fixed. :-( )
The upgrade worked fine, but now I do get a buffer io error a bunch of times then it boots. Everything appears to be working though.
(In reply to comment #7) > The upgrade worked fine Great, would you like to mark this bug as closed dupe of bug 241288 . > but now I do get a buffer io error a bunch of times > then it boots. Everything appears to be working though. Would you like to search for the exact error message you are seeing, and if not found file another bug for that issue ?
I would think that closing it would be a great idea, --- but I was wondering if we could tie these back and forth or something. As I noted above the instructions in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bugs/F7Common#head-65f561a07fdf2889f310f3aac0ab0f984faf3e9c Don't work as specified with a cdrom boot. I have the right instructions here for that version. Would it be possible to fix this report to include the cdrom boot instructions and then close this one?
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 241288 ***