Hide Forgot
When an inconsistent lvm vg is found the user can choose to ignore the involved pvs (often partitions), these then get added to anaconda's immutableDevices list, yet autopartitioning with a clearpart type of linux or all will still remove the involved partitions as shouldClear() does not honour the immutableDevices list.
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.
Note to QA. To reproduce this, do a default autopart install on 2 disks, then remove one disk (easiest with a vm), and start a new interactive install when prompted about the imcomplete volgroup, choose ignore, then choose clear linux partitions, check review partition layout and continue. You should get a complaint that there is not enough free space, instead the pv of the broken vg will get re-used, which should not happen as it should be ignored. Can we get a qa-ack for this please ?
Fixed in anaconda-13.21.44-1, moving to modified.
(In reply to comment #2) > Note to QA. To reproduce this, do a default autopart install on 2 disks, then > remove one disk (easiest with a vm), and start a new interactive install when > prompted about the imcomplete volgroup, choose ignore, then choose clear linux > partitions, check review partition layout and continue. You should get a > complaint that there is not enough free space, instead the pv of the broken vg > will get re-used, which should not happen as it should be ignored. > Hans, with 0707.4 tree I followed your steps to reproduce leaving the second disk for the second install. I got the error dialog telling me there wasn't enough free space. /so far bug is fixed/ After clicking OK there was a windows such as "re-scanning disks" or similar and then I just hit Next without changing previous settings. The second time anaconda didn't complain about missing space but happily removed my previous partitioning ( a single PV in this case) and created default partitioning (/boot, PV and / and swap in LVs). Is the behavior in the second retry expected or something related to this bug ?
Hi, (In reply to comment #5) > Hans, > with 0707.4 tree I followed your steps to reproduce leaving the second disk for > the second install. I got the error dialog telling me there wasn't enough free > space. /so far bug is fixed/ > > After clicking OK there was a windows such as "re-scanning disks" or similar > and then I just hit Next without changing previous settings. The second time > anaconda didn't complain about missing space but happily removed my previous > partitioning ( a single PV in this case) and created default partitioning > (/boot, PV and / and swap in LVs). > > Is the behavior in the second retry expected or something related to this bug ? Sounds like you've found a new (related) bug, can you please reproduce and file a new bug for this with logs attached ? Thanks, Hans
(In reply to comment #6) > Sounds like you've found a new (related) bug, can you please reproduce and file > a new bug for this with logs attached ? > Filed as bug #614812. When you say related I take it to mean that this bug can't be verified until 614812 is fixed.
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux maintenance release. Product Management has requested further review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for potential inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Update release for currently deployed products. This request is not yet committed for inclusion in an Update release.
With anaconda-13.21.107-1 I get the error message that there is not enough free space. This is as expected.
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 therefore 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-2011-0530.html