Bug 471457 - hts bombs on storage test with two SAS drives
Summary: hts bombs on storage test with two SAS drives
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED INSUFFICIENT_DATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Hardware Certification Program
Classification: Retired
Component: Test Suite (tests)
Version: 5.2
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
: ---
Assignee: YangKun
QA Contact: Lawrence Lim
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2008-11-13 19:33 UTC by Larry Troan
Modified: 2016-04-18 09:47 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-06-10 21:50:34 UTC
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Larry Troan 2008-11-13 19:33:10 UTC
Description of problem:
Trying to run hts-5.2-20.el5 in a Lenovo ThinkStation D10 with two 160GB HDs.
/dev/sda runs fine but /dev/sdb fails because the entire volume is detaulted to LVM. Tried to reinstall with /boot, /home and two 2GB swap volumes on sda and / on sdb. Fails on sdb again. 

Added a 2GB swap volume on sdb with fdisk but still fails because / is on sdb. 

Had to reinstall with nothing on sdb before I could get a successful storage test run.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:
Take defaults on install of system with two serial HDs. hts will fail if there is anything on sdb.


Actual results:
/dev/sdb fails certification test due to default LVM volume consuming all of sdb.

Expected results:
Successful test.

Comment 1 YangKun 2008-11-17 03:32:02 UTC
If there's an active swap partition on sdb, then there's no reason that the STORAGE test will fail on sdb regardless whether the "/" is on sdb or not.

could you please attach the result rpm file for invetigation ?

Thanks
-YK

Comment 2 YangKun 2009-05-19 05:38:18 UTC
Larry,

I could not re-produce this issue. Could you please give me some update ? Or could we close this bug now ?

Thanks
-YK

Comment 3 Rob Landry 2009-06-10 21:50:34 UTC
I'm going to close this one as not enough info, there's also some changes coming in storage via bug #437866 which may mitigate this issue, but because we haven't been able to reproduce it.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.