<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2012/9/15 Adam Williamson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:awilliam@redhat.com" target="_blank">awilliam@redhat.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On 2012-09-14 22:29, cornel panceac wrote:<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">
being tired of the dracut selinux infinite loop, i've decided this<br>
morning to reinstall f18 from f18 x86 netinst disc. all attempts to<br>
boot with standard options failed with a kernel crash (maybe my video<br>
card is broken). i eventually managed to reach anaconda by booting in<br>
safe graphics mode. there, i've completed the steps required (what is<br>
the target device, what software, time zone) then pressed continue.<br>
then, i've been hit by this:<br>
</div><a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857607" target="_blank">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/<u></u>show_bug.cgi?id=857607</a> [1] . I've seen<div class="im"><br>
this before on same system in the previous 5 (?) years so that was not<br>
a big surprise. a big surprise was that after i reboot, something<br>
messed my existing linux partitions (actually one of them is missing).<br>
what do i mean by 'messed'? well, first, grub2 fails to load a menu<br>
saying that "no such partition" and offers a grub shell. then, in f17<br>
rescue mode, the system complains that i have no linux partitions.<br>
going to rescue mode's shell, the partitions are marked "Linux", but<br>
the last one (#7) is missing. then i booted system rescue cd. there,<br>
mount /dev/sdb{1,5,7} /mnt/mountpoint ended with something similar to<br>
"broken ntfs signature". adding -t ext3 in the mix didn't help, error<br>
was something like "bad superblock etc".<br>
THIS is something i don't remember to have ever seen on fedora<br>
(alpha, beta or final).<br>
</div></blockquote>
<br>
You need to say what layout you had on the disk(s) previously, and what options you chose during install. It's impossible to know what happened. </blockquote><div><br>well the layout was something like this:<br><br>p1 ->10gb -> scientific linux<br>
p2 -> 0.5 gb -> boot<br>p3 -> 1gb -> swap<br><br>p5 -> 140 gb -> /home -- that's the partition anaconda complained about and errored out. also that's the partition i care more about :)<br><br>p6 -> 10 gb -> f18<br>
p7 -> 70 gb -> / -- this is no longer present<br><br>the size are aproximated. the partitions that apparently are still there, can not be mounted<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
It's possible you simply hit this:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855976" target="_blank">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/<u></u>show_bug.cgi?id=855976</a></blockquote><div><br>looks similar but, i've never seen something like choosing what kind of partitioning to use (custom, free space, replace linux ). it just crashed and data was no longer there or accessible.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
Remember, this is an *Alpha*. You shouldn't deploy an Alpha of anything to any system you can't bear to lose. We do warn about this, regularly. You're also installing the Alpha before it's even been announced; I'm aiming to ensure this issue and other major ones in Alpha are explained in the release announcement when we release it, but we haven't, yet.</blockquote>
<div><br>well, i always fail to mention this: one of the reason i report this kind of things is because i want you to know about their existence. another reson is that i want to learn why this happened and how can be avoided. in this case, i also very much want to recover the lost data :D <br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
from personal experience, i believe something is deeply wrong in the<br>
anaconda logic. and of course, the back and forth mess is also a<br>
problem. why not just continue to the next required step, with back<br>
being an option, and at the end present a summary of completed and<br>
incompleted steps, if any?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
That isn't the design. There aren't steps that you go through one by one. The design is referred to as 'hub and spoke'. There is a main screen - the hub - and several spokes, some of which are optional, and which you can complete in any order, and which you can revisit any number of times, and which may potentially affect each other. The hub/spoke design was considered a better reflection of the capabilities of anaconda than the wizard-ish design.<div class="im">
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
btw, on systems with many hard disks (at least 2), if linux/anaconda<br>
is unable to tell which is the first hard disk system will boot, why<br>
not install grub on all hard disk, just to be sure?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
That's a horrible idea...<br>
<br>
Bootloader installation selection is something else which isn't entirely implemented in newUI yet. But we certainly don't want to go around automatically squelching whatever's in the MBR of every single disk on the system. That certainly would be bad behaviour. And 'lethal'.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
</font></span></blockquote><div><br>i do not really understand why are you sayng that. i mean, since we already do not know if we are installing grub to the right drive, what's worst in doing it two times in a row? (or three, etc)<br>
<br>after all, this can be enabled by user's choice, who should know better if there's is some special boot loader in mbr somewhere ...<br><br>otoh, this is the smallest of my problems, now :)<br></div></div><br><br>