From dchapman at redhat.com Wed Sep 3 01:20:13 2008 From: dchapman at redhat.com (Doug Chapman) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 21:20:13 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-ia64-list] ia64 nfs install error In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1220404813.32202.5.camel@athlon> Paul, On Sat, 2008-08-30 at 01:03 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote: > Hey, > > I tried to do an ia64 install using the netinstall image. It boots > fine, and partitions things, does the networking, accepts the install > url of http://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora-secondary/releases/9/ > and starts X but then dies on: > > Cannot retrieve repository metadata (repomd.xml) for repository: > anaconda-Fedora-200806271112.ia64. Please verify its path and try > again. I have noticed that in F9 anaconda doesn't check if you give it a bad url like it used to. It doesn't complain until the install fails when it cannot find the needed files. You should use this URL for the install: http://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora-secondary/releases/9/Fedora/ia64/os/ Let us know if you run into any other issue. - Doug From paul at xelerance.com Wed Sep 3 04:10:01 2008 From: paul at xelerance.com (Paul Wouters) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 00:10:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Fedora-ia64-list] ia64 nfs install error In-Reply-To: <1220404813.32202.5.camel@athlon> References: <1220404813.32202.5.camel@athlon> Message-ID: On Tue, 2 Sep 2008, Doug Chapman wrote: Hi Doug, > I have noticed that in F9 anaconda doesn't check if you give it a bad > url like it used to. It doesn't complain until the install fails when > it cannot find the needed files. > > You should use this URL for the install: > > http://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora-secondary/releases/9/Fedora/ia64/os/ Really? Because I thought it did find the install image from the url and started things like the partitioner, which I assumed it got from the network. I guess those parts came from the cdrom. > Let us know if you run into any other issue. I did actually. I ended up using the 5 cdroms. The installer added a "Fedora" boot entry, but the system could not boot from it. Looking at the previously working debian boot entry that was left from a previous install, the entry seemed to be missing a second line with the elilo -F parameters on it. But I was not sure how to edit the Fedora entry to fix it, as I don't have much experience with the EFI bootloader yet. I am not at the ia64 machine right now, so I'll try to give you a better error message. It looked to me like the kernel booted without a ramdisk and therefor could not mount the root fs and paniced. Thanks, Paul From dchapman at redhat.com Wed Sep 3 12:53:14 2008 From: dchapman at redhat.com (Doug Chapman) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 08:53:14 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-ia64-list] ia64 nfs install error In-Reply-To: References: <1220404813.32202.5.camel@athlon> Message-ID: <1220446394.7456.3.camel@oberon> On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 00:10 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote: > On Tue, 2 Sep 2008, Doug Chapman wrote: > > Hi Doug, > > > I have noticed that in F9 anaconda doesn't check if you give it a bad > > url like it used to. It doesn't complain until the install fails when > > it cannot find the needed files. > > > > You should use this URL for the install: > > > > http://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora-secondary/releases/9/Fedora/ia64/os/ > > Really? Because I thought it did find the install image from the url and started > things like the partitioner, which I assumed it got from the network. I guess > those parts came from the cdrom. In F8 and earlier that is how it worked but in F9 the anaconda stage2 code is on the install CD. > > > Let us know if you run into any other issue. > > I did actually. I ended up using the 5 cdroms. The installer added a > "Fedora" boot entry, but the system could not boot from it. Looking at > the previously working debian boot entry that was left from a previous > install, the entry seemed to be missing a second line with the elilo > -F parameters on it. But I was not sure how to edit the Fedora entry > to fix it, as I don't have much experience with the EFI bootloader yet. I am not sure what this -F thing is. I doubt that is the issue. > > I am not at the ia64 machine right now, so I'll try to give you a better > error message. It looked to me like the kernel booted without a ramdisk > and therefor could not mount the root fs and paniced. Does the system have a serial console? If so can you capture the entire boot log? It would be most helpful if you could add "debug" to the kernel command line args so we get everything. What model of system are you running on? Also what type of storage are you installing to? - Doug From danielx.ramirez at intel.com Wed Sep 3 19:54:46 2008 From: danielx.ramirez at intel.com (Ramirez, DanielX) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 12:54:46 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-ia64-list] FC9 boot problem Message-ID: <12A5C15467D5B94F8E0FF265D9498ADD039C1F63@orsmsx419.amr.corp.intel.com> I am trying to install FC9 on an old Intel SR87BH2 server, and I have run into a strange problem. It aborts in elilo with the following error: ELILO BOOT elilo.c (line 78) cannot find a loader for vmlinuz The server has been upgraded to Montecito dual core Itanium 2 processors, and has the latest BIOS/Firmware I am able to find. I tried both the DVD and CD versions, and both get the same error. Both ISO's pass the MD5 check OK. FC8 installs fine, so that's what I am using, but I'd really like to upgrade to FC9. Is there something different about elilo in FC9, or is this a bug of some kind? Any help would be appreciated. Dan Daniel E. Ramirez CompuCom Systems Inc. On-site at Intel IT-GPCS-NBS SSG HPC Lab Dedicated Technician Desk: 503-712-9171 cell: 971-344-9612 DanielX.Ramirez at intel.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emeric.maschino at gmail.com Wed Sep 3 22:03:23 2008 From: emeric.maschino at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=C9meric_Maschino?=) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 00:03:23 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-ia64-list] FC9 boot problem In-Reply-To: <12A5C15467D5B94F8E0FF265D9498ADD039C1F63@orsmsx419.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <12A5C15467D5B94F8E0FF265D9498ADD039C1F63@orsmsx419.amr.corp.intel.com> Message-ID: Hi, Don't boot the FC9 DVD with the elilo.efi that immediately appears in the EFI shell partition. Run the one that is on the EFI\boot subdirectory, it should work fine. I had the exact same issue when I installed FC9 on my workstation a few days ago. Hope this helps, ?meric 2008/9/3 Ramirez, DanielX > I am trying to install FC9 on an old Intel SR87BH2 server, and I have run > into a strange problem. It aborts in elilo with the following error: > > > > ELILO BOOT elilo.c (line 78) cannot find a loader for vmlinuz > > > > The server has been upgraded to Montecito dual core Itanium 2 processors, > and has the latest BIOS/Firmware I am able to find. I tried both the DVD > and CD versions, and both get the same error. Both ISO's pass the MD5 check > OK. FC8 installs fine, so that's what I am using, but I'd really like to > upgrade to FC9. Is there something different about elilo in FC9, or is this > a bug of some kind? Any help would be appreciated. > > Dan > > > > *Daniel E. Ramirez* > > CompuCom Systems Inc. > > On-site at Intel > > IT-GPCS-NBS > > SSG HPC Lab Dedicated Technician > > Desk: 503-712-9171 > > cell: 971-344-9612 > > DanielX.Ramirez at intel.com > > > > > > -- > Fedora-ia64-list mailing list > Fedora-ia64-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-ia64-list > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ausil at fedoraproject.org Thu Sep 4 13:50:22 2008 From: ausil at fedoraproject.org (Dennis Gilmore) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 08:50:22 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-ia64-list] builder update Message-ID: <200809040850.23007.ausil@fedoraproject.org> Hey all, So right now we have gotten the cyclades connected to the consoles. however the machines are not configured for serial console. ia64-3 seems to somewhat be setup for serial console. however all i can get is ? on ia64-3, ia64-2 is up however I do not have an account on it and ia64-1 is also up, and i have switched out the certs so that it uses fedora's new ca for user auth. I will try and get the person who is physically there to help with ia64-3 and hopefully ill get an account on ia64-2 to make sure its ok I would like to get some specs on the systems. is it possible to get ipmi cards for them? what can be done to make them easier to remotely manage? I want to take this opportunity to once again say that Fedora doesn't have the resources for hosting the buildsystem. and there is not someone at the colo where they are hosted. I have managed to be given access to the PDU's and cyclades that they are plugged into. and will help where i can. Any request for help should have a ticket filled at https://fedorahosted.org/fedora- infrastructure/ and we will do our best to help. the servers are on Red Hats network and in Red Hats racks. but fedora has the access to help maintain them. We have been very clear that fedora doesn't have the resources to host servers for build systems for secondary arches. I would like to know what the plan is for hardware going forward. Dennis -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From dchapman at redhat.com Thu Sep 4 14:21:58 2008 From: dchapman at redhat.com (Doug Chapman) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 10:21:58 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-ia64-list] builder update In-Reply-To: <200809040850.23007.ausil@fedoraproject.org> References: <200809040850.23007.ausil@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1220538118.6623.5.camel@centrino> On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 08:50 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > Hey all, > > So right now we have gotten the cyclades connected to the consoles. however > the machines are not configured for serial console. ia64-3 seems to somewhat > be setup for serial console. however all i can get is ? on ia64-3, ia64-2 is > up however I do not have an account on it and ia64-1 is also up, and i have > switched out the certs so that it uses fedora's new ca for user auth. I will > try and get the person who is physically there to help with ia64-3 and > hopefully ill get an account on ia64-2 to make sure its ok > > I would like to get some specs on the systems. is it possible to get ipmi > cards for them? what can be done to make them easier to remotely manage? I have never been clear on what these boxes are. They were donated by the ISA (Itanium solutions alliance) and I think they are older versions of the Hitachi systems that Intel sells as their ia64 development platform. I do not believe these older systems have any sort of manageability option. However, I should have HP systems that do have manageability lined up to replace these systems. > > I want to take this opportunity to once again say that Fedora doesn't have the > resources for hosting the buildsystem. and there is not someone at the colo > where they are hosted. I have managed to be given access to the PDU's and > cyclades that they are plugged into. and will help where i can. Any request > for help should have a ticket filled at https://fedorahosted.org/fedora- > infrastructure/ and we will do our best to help. the servers are on Red Hats > network and in Red Hats racks. but fedora has the access to help maintain > them. > > We have been very clear that fedora doesn't have the resources to host servers > for build systems for secondary arches. I would like to know what the plan is > for hardware going forward. I understand that, that is why we worked with Red Hat to host them. As you mention they are in a Red Hat rack and using Red Hat networking/power. I have been told that we should be going through Red Hat IT for any support (however there obviously have been issues with that). thanks, - Doug From ausil at fedoraproject.org Thu Sep 4 14:59:42 2008 From: ausil at fedoraproject.org (Dennis Gilmore) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 09:59:42 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-ia64-list] builder update Message-ID: <200809040959.42723.ausil@fedoraproject.org> On Thursday 04 September 2008 09:21:58 am Doug Chapman wrote: > On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 08:50 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > > Hey all, > > > > So right now we have gotten the cyclades connected to the consoles. > > however the machines are not configured for serial console. ia64-3 seems > > to somewhat be setup for serial console. however all i can get is ? on > > ia64-3, ia64-2 is up however I do not have an account on it and ia64-1 > > is also up, and i have switched out the certs so that it uses fedora's > > new ca for user auth. I will try and get the person who is physically > > there to help with ia64-3 and hopefully ill get an account on ia64-2 to > > make sure its ok > > > > I would like to get some specs on the systems. is it possible to get > > ipmi cards for them? what can be done to make them easier to remotely > > manage? > > I have never been clear on what these boxes are. They were donated by > the ISA (Itanium solutions alliance) and I think they are older versions > of the Hitachi systems that Intel sells as their ia64 development > platform. I do not believe these older systems have any sort of > manageability option. > > However, I should have HP systems that do have manageability lined up to > replace these systems. i have serial console on them now from elilo up but not efi. i guess that needs the person physically there to configure it. > > I want to take this opportunity to once again say that Fedora doesn't > > have the resources for hosting the buildsystem. and there is not someone > > at the colo where they are hosted. I have managed to be given access to > > the PDU's and cyclades that they are plugged into. and will help where i > > can. Any request for help should have a ticket filled at > > https://fedorahosted.org/fedora- infrastructure/ and we will do our best > > to help. the servers are on Red Hats network and in Red Hats racks. but > > fedora has the access to help maintain them. > > > > We have been very clear that fedora doesn't have the resources to host > > servers for build systems for secondary arches. I would like to know > > what the plan is for hardware going forward. > > I understand that, that is why we worked with Red Hat to host them. As > you mention they are in a Red Hat rack and using Red Hat > networking/power. I have been told that we should be going through Red > Hat IT for any support (however there obviously have been issues with > that). the main issue is that because they have fedora in the name RH IS thinks they are fedora boxes so don't want to touch them. since fedora's infrastructure is very separate from Red Hat's. Now you are being told to go through fedora infrastucture. please do so. Dennis -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From paul at xelerance.com Sun Sep 7 20:38:28 2008 From: paul at xelerance.com (Paul Wouters) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 16:38:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Fedora-ia64-list] ia64 nfs install error In-Reply-To: <1220446394.7456.3.camel@oberon> References: <1220404813.32202.5.camel@athlon> <1220446394.7456.3.camel@oberon> Message-ID: On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, Doug Chapman wrote: >>> Let us know if you run into any other issue. >> >> I did actually. I ended up using the 5 cdroms. The installer added a >> "Fedora" boot entry, but the system could not boot from it. Looking at >> the previously working debian boot entry that was left from a previous >> install, the entry seemed to be missing a second line with the elilo >> -F parameters on it. But I was not sure how to edit the Fedora entry >> to fix it, as I don't have much experience with the EFI bootloader yet. > > I am not sure what this -F thing is. I doubt that is the issue. The real problem is: md: Scanned 0 and added 0 devices. VFS: Cannot open root device "VolGroup00/LogVol00" or unknown-block(0,0) >> I am not at the ia64 machine right now, so I'll try to give you a better >> error message. It looked to me like the kernel booted without a ramdisk >> and therefor could not mount the root fs and paniced. > > Does the system have a serial console? If so can you capture the entire > boot log? It would be most helpful if you could add "debug" to the > kernel command line args so we get everything. I added "debug", and though the machine has a serial port, I was not able to get any data out of it (perhaps a null vs serial cable issue) The VGA logs too fast to see whether it can find the scsi disks. I think it is not loading the ramdisk and therefor cannot find any disks. When i boot the cdrom in rescue mode, it shows me that it is loading a ramdisk. I can then also see the mounts in /mnt/sysimage for /boot, /boot/efi and the root via /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol00. > What model of system are you running on? Also what type of storage are > you installing to? It is an "HP workstation zx9000" with two scsi disks striped with mdraid to be one big partition (using the 'default' partition layout scheme from the install) My kernel does appear in /boot/efi/EFI/redhat/, but no ramdisk image is available. Using the rescue cdrom, i chroot'ed into the installed image, and ran mkinitrd and updated elilo.conf by adding the initrd= line. Then it loaded the initrd, abd Red Hat nash booted, but I got an error: FATAL: Error inserting ext3 (/lib/modules/2.6.25-14.fc9.ia64/ext3.ko): Unknown symbol in module, or unknown paramter (see dmesg) And a similar error for mptspi.ko. Then it tried to rad all volumes, and said: No volume groups found Volume group "VolGroup00" not found mount: could not find filesystem '/dev/root' Since I generated the initrd from the installed kernel modules, I am not sure why the modules have unknown symbols.... Paul Paul From paul at xelerance.com Sun Sep 7 21:12:12 2008 From: paul at xelerance.com (Paul Wouters) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 17:12:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [solved] Re: [Fedora-ia64-list] ia64 nfs install error In-Reply-To: References: <1220404813.32202.5.camel@athlon> <1220446394.7456.3.camel@oberon> Message-ID: On Sun, 7 Sep 2008, Paul Wouters wrote: > The real problem is: > > md: Scanned 0 and added 0 devices. > > VFS: Cannot open root device "VolGroup00/LogVol00" or unknown-block(0,0) [...] > My kernel does appear in /boot/efi/EFI/redhat/, but no ramdisk image is > available. Using the rescue cdrom, i chroot'ed into the installed image, > and ran mkinitrd and updated elilo.conf by adding the initrd= line. > > Then it loaded the initrd, abd Red Hat nash booted, but I got an error: > > FATAL: Error inserting ext3 (/lib/modules/2.6.25-14.fc9.ia64/ext3.ko): > Unknown symbol in module, or unknown paramter (see dmesg) > Since I generated the initrd from the installed kernel modules, I am not > sure why the modules have unknown symbols.... I redid the mkinitrd using all the force options, eg: mkinitrd --force-scsi-probe --force-raid-probe --force-lvm-probe My fedora-ia64 now boots properly. Cheers, Paul From paul at xelerance.com Sun Sep 7 21:22:08 2008 From: paul at xelerance.com (Paul Wouters) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 17:22:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Fedora-ia64-list] ia64 nfs install error In-Reply-To: <1220446394.7456.3.camel@oberon> References: <1220404813.32202.5.camel@athlon> <1220446394.7456.3.camel@oberon> Message-ID: On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, Doug Chapman wrote: > What model of system are you running on? Also what type of storage are > you installing to? FYI, I submitted a smolt profile at: www.smolts.org/client/show/pub_2011c7d9-df07-4225-92a7-5b158e6c201a Paul From dchapman at redhat.com Tue Sep 9 16:59:06 2008 From: dchapman at redhat.com (Doug Chapman) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 12:59:06 -0400 Subject: [solved] Re: [Fedora-ia64-list] ia64 nfs install error In-Reply-To: References: <1220404813.32202.5.camel@athlon> <1220446394.7456.3.camel@oberon> Message-ID: <1220979546.28514.19.camel@oberon> On Sun, 2008-09-07 at 17:12 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote: > On Sun, 7 Sep 2008, Paul Wouters wrote: > > > The real problem is: > > > > md: Scanned 0 and added 0 devices. > > > > VFS: Cannot open root device "VolGroup00/LogVol00" or unknown-block(0,0) > > [...] > > > My kernel does appear in /boot/efi/EFI/redhat/, but no ramdisk image is > > available. Using the rescue cdrom, i chroot'ed into the installed image, > > and ran mkinitrd and updated elilo.conf by adding the initrd= line. > > > > Then it loaded the initrd, abd Red Hat nash booted, but I got an error: > > > > FATAL: Error inserting ext3 (/lib/modules/2.6.25-14.fc9.ia64/ext3.ko): > > Unknown symbol in module, or unknown paramter (see dmesg) > > > Since I generated the initrd from the installed kernel modules, I am not > > sure why the modules have unknown symbols.... > > I redid the mkinitrd using all the force options, eg: > > mkinitrd --force-scsi-probe --force-raid-probe --force-lvm-probe > > My fedora-ia64 now boots properly. > > Cheers, > > Paul Paul, Glad to hear you resolved this. It sounds like this is a general mkinitrd issue. It seems ia64 is often the victim of such bugs since we usually have more interesting storage configurations. It would probably be worth filing a BZ against mkinitrd so they are aware it isn't handling things properly. - Doug