Re: [oneSIS-users] [EXT] Re: Still trying CentOS 7.2 & oneSIS
Brought to you by:
jjengla
|
From: <bbe...@go...> - 2016-08-23 00:28:09
|
lsmod output: / # lsmod Module Size Used by Not tainted nfsv3 39436 0 nfs 251822 1 nfsv3 fscache 64987 1 nfs lockd 93600 2 nfsv3,nfs grace 13295 1 lockd nfs_acl 12837 1 nfsv3 sunrpc 300464 4 nfsv3,nfs,lockd,nfs_acl cnic 67088 0 uio 19259 1 cnic bnx2 89215 0 sd_mod 45497 0 crc_t10dif 12714 1 sd_mod crct10dif_common 12595 1 crc_t10dif mpt2sas 194309 0 raid_class 13554 1 mpt2sas mptsas 62268 0 scsi_transport_sas 41034 2 mpt2sas,mptsas mptscsih 40150 1 mptsas mptbase 105960 2 mptsas,mptscsih / # Well... The question about ext3 being in the ramfs is a good question. I thought last week that maybe that I needed ext3 in the ramfs but the ext3.ko doesn't seem to be in this CentOS. I have a ext4.ko which I added to the ramfs image. I know that that isn't what I want/need but I thought that I should at least see it in the /proc/filesystems (or am I wrong about that?). Here is my latest mk-initfamfs-oneSIS line: mk-initramfs-oneSIS --base /var/lib/oneSIS/image-CENTOS7.2 --preload=ext4 --preload=mptscsih --preload=mptsas --preload=mpt2sas --preload=sd_mod --preload=af_packet --preload=bnx2 --preload=cnic --preload=ipv6 --preload=nfsv3 --recursecopy=/lib/firmware/bnx2 /tftpboot/initramfs-3.10.0-327.el7.x86_64.img.centos7.2 3.10.0-327.el7.x86_64 / # cat /proc/filesystems nodev sysfs nodev rootfs nodev bdev nodev proc nodev cgroup nodev cpuset nodev tmpfs nodev devtmpfs nodev debugfs nodev securityfs nodev sockfs nodev pipefs nodev anon_inodefs nodev configfs nodev devpts nodev ramfs nodev hugetlbfs nodev autofs nodev pstore nodev mqueue nodev selinuxfs nodev rpc_pipefs nodev nfs nodev nfs4 / # >>> Josh England writes: Josh> What does 'lsmod' show? Do you have ext3 included in your ramfs image? Josh> Josh> -JE Josh> Josh> Josh> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 7:05 AM, Dave Love <d....@li...> wrote: Josh> >> <bbe...@go...> writes: >> >> > That stymies me. What can it mean that the device exists and the >> > disk is there but it won't mount? >> |