0002940: Anaconda aborts saying it can not write to a RAID1 member partition, which has not been altered nor used for the installation

(0007539)
elias1884 (reporter)
2008-07-01 14:49

Disk /dev/sda: 400.0 GB, 400088457216 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 48641 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 * 1 26 208844+ fd Linux raid autodetect
/dev/sda2 * 27 52 208845 83 Linux
/dev/sda3 * 53 78 208845 fd Linux raid autodetect
/dev/sda4 79 48641 390082297+ 85 Linux extended
/dev/sda5 79 1384 10490444+ fd Linux raid autodetect
/dev/sda6 1385 2690 10490444+ fd Linux raid autodetect
/dev/sda7 2691 3996 10490444+ fd Linux raid autodetect
/dev/sda8 3997 48641 358610931 fd Linux raid autodetect

Disk /dev/sdb: 400.0 GB, 400088457216 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 48641 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sdb1 * 1 26 208844+ fd Linux raid autodetect
/dev/sdb2 * 27 52 208845 83 Linux
/dev/sdb3 * 53 78 208845 fd Linux raid autodetect
/dev/sdb4 79 48641 390082297+ 85 Linux extended
/dev/sdb5 79 1384 10490444+ fd Linux raid autodetect
/dev/sdb6 1385 2690 10490444+ fd Linux raid autodetect
/dev/sdb7 2691 3996 10490444+ fd Linux raid autodetect
/dev/sdb8 3997 48641 358610931 fd Linux raid autodetect

(0007542)
elias1884 (reporter)
2008-07-01 21:25

That is the error message anaconda gave me:
Error informing the kernel about modifications to partition /dev/sda5 -- Device or resource busy. This means Linux won't know about any changes you made to /dev/sda5 until you reboot -- so you shouldn't mount it or use it in any way before rebooting.

Clicking OK did exit anaconda

(0007543)
elias1884 (reporter)
2008-07-01 21:33

Could be my anaconda problem is coming from here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bugs/F7Common#Partition_table_claimed_to_be_invalid_on_previously_working_drive [^]

(0007544)
elias1884 (reporter)
2008-07-01 23:23

Fedora 9 does show the same error, but hitting "ignore" lets me finish the installation as opposed to Centos 5.2, which does quit the installation process even when hitting ignore!

(0007545)
elias1884 (reporter)
2008-07-01 23:53

Centos throws an exception when hitting ignore

(0007547)
timverhoeven (developer)
2008-07-02 08:03

Could you try the install with the option given in that Fedora wiki article you linked to ? It might fix it.

(0007548)
elias1884 (reporter)
2008-07-02 12:35

Unfortunately I can't do that. I have a server at Hetzner.de and am using their VNC installation routine, which does not allow me to pass any kernel params.

(0007550)
elias1884 (reporter)
2008-07-02 14:41

I very much doubt that this has anything to do with HPA, as HPA generally concerns the end of a disk. /dev/sda5 however is in the middle of the drive (first extended partition) therefore even if there was a HPA, it should not concern /dev/sda5.

Also my Server came with blank disks and as this is no-name hardware there is not DELL or IBM stuff in HPA.

What I found out however is, that it seems anaconda treats /dev/sda5 as a disk instead of as a partition. It tries to reload the changes made to its partition table as it seems.

Also, what appeared to be very interesting was the fact that on the console I tried to check the raid superblocks when the error message popped up (before clicking ignore). It appeared as non of the extended partitions on sda was known by the system = dev or file not found. While I could access everything on sdb.

Debian Etch however can boot and assemble all Raids without any problems. I really have no idea what is going on, but it does not seem to be HPA. Unfortunately Etch's dmesg does not show any HPA stuff either, so I can not confirm with 100% accuracy that there is not HPA. But I am 99,99% sure there is none.

Why should a blank disk, bought by bulk have a HPA set?

Notes
(0007539) elias1884 (reporter) 2008-07-01 14:49	Disk /dev/sda: 400.0 GB, 400088457216 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 48641 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 1 26 208844+ fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sda2 * 27 52 208845 83 Linux /dev/sda3 * 53 78 208845 fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sda4 79 48641 390082297+ 85 Linux extended /dev/sda5 79 1384 10490444+ fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sda6 1385 2690 10490444+ fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sda7 2691 3996 10490444+ fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sda8 3997 48641 358610931 fd Linux raid autodetect Disk /dev/sdb: 400.0 GB, 400088457216 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 48641 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 * 1 26 208844+ fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdb2 * 27 52 208845 83 Linux /dev/sdb3 * 53 78 208845 fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdb4 79 48641 390082297+ 85 Linux extended /dev/sdb5 79 1384 10490444+ fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdb6 1385 2690 10490444+ fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdb7 2691 3996 10490444+ fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdb8 3997 48641 358610931 fd Linux raid autodetect

(0007542) elias1884 (reporter) 2008-07-01 21:25	That is the error message anaconda gave me: Error informing the kernel about modifications to partition /dev/sda5 -- Device or resource busy. This means Linux won't know about any changes you made to /dev/sda5 until you reboot -- so you shouldn't mount it or use it in any way before rebooting. Clicking OK did exit anaconda

(0007543) elias1884 (reporter) 2008-07-01 21:33	Could be my anaconda problem is coming from here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bugs/F7Common#Partition_table_claimed_to_be_invalid_on_previously_working_drive [^]

(0007544) elias1884 (reporter) 2008-07-01 23:23	Fedora 9 does show the same error, but hitting "ignore" lets me finish the installation as opposed to Centos 5.2, which does quit the installation process even when hitting ignore!

(0007545) elias1884 (reporter) 2008-07-01 23:53	Centos throws an exception when hitting ignore

(0007547) timverhoeven (developer) 2008-07-02 08:03	Could you try the install with the option given in that Fedora wiki article you linked to ? It might fix it.

(0007548) elias1884 (reporter) 2008-07-02 12:35	Unfortunately I can't do that. I have a server at Hetzner.de and am using their VNC installation routine, which does not allow me to pass any kernel params.

(0007550) elias1884 (reporter) 2008-07-02 14:41	I very much doubt that this has anything to do with HPA, as HPA generally concerns the end of a disk. /dev/sda5 however is in the middle of the drive (first extended partition) therefore even if there was a HPA, it should not concern /dev/sda5. Also my Server came with blank disks and as this is no-name hardware there is not DELL or IBM stuff in HPA. What I found out however is, that it seems anaconda treats /dev/sda5 as a disk instead of as a partition. It tries to reload the changes made to its partition table as it seems. Also, what appeared to be very interesting was the fact that on the console I tried to check the raid superblocks when the error message popped up (before clicking ignore). It appeared as non of the extended partitions on sda was known by the system = dev or file not found. While I could access everything on sdb. Debian Etch however can boot and assemble all Raids without any problems. I really have no idea what is going on, but it does not seem to be HPA. Unfortunately Etch's dmesg does not show any HPA stuff either, so I can not confirm with 100% accuracy that there is not HPA. But I am 99,99% sure there is none. Why should a blank disk, bought by bulk have a HPA set?

Issue History
Date Modified	Username	Field	Change
2008-07-01 14:27	elias1884	New Issue
2008-07-01 14:27	elias1884	File Added: centos5.error
2008-07-01 14:49	elias1884	Note Added: 0007539
2008-07-01 21:25	elias1884	Note Added: 0007542
2008-07-01 21:33	elias1884	Note Added: 0007543
2008-07-01 23:23	elias1884	Note Added: 0007544
2008-07-01 23:53	elias1884	Note Added: 0007545
2008-07-02 08:03	timverhoeven	Note Added: 0007547
2008-07-02 12:35	elias1884	Note Added: 0007548
2008-07-02 14:41	elias1884	Note Added: 0007550

Relationships