2.6.16-1.2080_FC5 kernel panic (nv raid0, 86_64 architecture)

[Terry Kemp]

On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 20:15 -0400, Debbie Deutsch wrote:
> 
> Thanks for trying to help.  I'm not sure I understand.  I never got RAID
> to work under FC4.  (My familiarity with all the tools and steps
> involved was slim-to-nonexistant, and I simply did not have the time to
> experiment with various explanations I saw on the 'net about how to get
> FC4 to boot from an nVidia-based RAID array.)  My system has only one
> installation on it; it is FC5.  The kernel that works is the one that
> shipped with FC5.  I installed it with no problems, and it boots just
> fine.  The new kernel (2.6.16-1.2080_FC5) fails to boot because it can't
> recognize the raid 0 array that was created as part of the original FC5
> install.  Are you saying that the kernel that shipped with FC5 is broken
> (has the raid fault) and the new one, which cannot read my RAID 0 array,
> is okay?
> 
> In any case, here is what my /etc/fstab file says.  (Note that I have
> adjusted the white spaces to help with readability.)
> 
> /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol00 /              ext3    defaults        1 1
> LABEL=/boot              /boot          ext3    defaults        1 2
> devpts                   /dev/pts       devpts  gid=5,mode=620  0 0
> tmpfs                    /dev/shm       tmpfs   defaults        0 0
> /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol02 /home          ext3    defaults        1 2
> proc                     /proc          proc    defaults        0 0
> /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol03 /shared        ext3    defaults        1 2
> sysfs                    /sys           sysfs   defaults        0 0
> /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol01 swap           swap    defaults        0 0
> 
> I am no expert in file system surgery.  Are you suggesting that I need
> to change LABEL=/boot to something else?  (Yeah, I know enough to
> understand what your reference to sda2 is about, but no, I am not
> experienced or comfortable enough to be able to say off the top of my
> head if that is the right device or if it should be sda1 instead. )
> 
> FWIW, like you, I have SATA drives in that RAID array.  Sorry I forgot
> to mention that.
> 
> Thanks very much for your assistance,
> 
> Debbie
> 
> P.S. This system is mostly used as a file server.  The /home is just
> what you would expect it to be; the /shared partition is primarily for
> back ups and file sharing among the Windows machines on my network.

OK our problems are a bit different (but probably attributed to the same
kernel issue).
Is this software Raid0?
Can you post the results of fdisk -l