https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=333753#c9 --- Comment #9 from Occo Eric Nolf <oen@dsl.pipex.com> 2007-10-22 07:18:11 MST ---
Hmm. Looks more like a dmraid problem then.
Under 10.2, dmraid has always been somewhat tricky. When using RAID0+1 one might expect the partitioner to specify 1 large drive - but that is not what happens. The partitioner (both during installation and on the installed 10.2 system) always starts with reporting that the partition tables of 2 of the 4 drives can not be read. This doesn't make sense - the drives themselves are not important at all, onlt the RAID0+1 is. The partition table shows not only the RAID0+1 array, but also the 2 underlying striped arrays plus details of the 2 drives reported earlier as having a partition table that can't be read (1 drive in each of the striped arrays). In principle, one could define partitions on these - and that should be impossible, as they are integral parts of the RAID0+1. I got the impression dmraid is hardly being maintained nowadays, but didn't pay too much attention as it DOES work under 10.2. Under 10.3 the situation is different ... it doesn't work.
Please boot into the 10.3 rescue system and provide the output of dmraid -r and dmraid -s
That's a bit of a problem as I've only 1 system running on RAID0+1 - and that, in fact, is my main system. When 10.3 didn't work I re-installed 10.2. Getting the information you request would entail a complete install of 10.3, booting into the rescue system, and then re-installing 10.2 to get my main system running again (I can't free any partitions to make room for a more permanent 10.3 install). This is rather time-consuming, as you can imagine - apart from the risks I take by experimenting on what is basically a production system. However ... if you really need this info let me know and I'll fit it in somehow. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.