Bug 609651 - Anaconda picks non-raid device for default boot loader
Anaconda picks non-raid device for default boot loader
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
Classification: Red Hat
Component: anaconda (Show other bugs)
6.1
All Linux
low Severity medium
: rc
: ---
Assigned To: Anaconda Maintenance Team
Release Test Team
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2010-06-30 14:44 EDT by Mike McGrath
Modified: 2010-06-30 16:20 EDT (History)
0 users

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-06-30 16:20:31 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Mike McGrath 2010-06-30 14:44:03 EDT
Description of problem:

I've got a /dev/sd[a-c].  In that I have a partition on sdb and sdc which are raided as /dev/md0 and mounted on my /boot.  Anaconda was attempting to install the boot loader on /dev/sdb instead of /dev/md0

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

Whatever version comes with the RHEL6 beta 2 that launched today.

How reproducible:

Only tested once so far.

Steps to Reproduce:
1.  Create /dev/sdb1 and /dev/sdc1
2.  Software raid them (raid1) at /boot ext4
3.  click next to the boot loader screen.
  
Actual results:

"Install boot loader on /dev/sdb" was displayed

Expected results:

"Install boot loader on /dev/md0"

Additional info:

This was done with a kickstart install but we had the storage section blank so we could do that manually.
Comment 2 RHEL Product and Program Management 2010-06-30 15:03:19 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 3 Mike McGrath 2010-06-30 16:20:31 EDT
Nope, looks like what I thought would work does in fact not work.  The behavior it's showing seems to be correct.

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