From: Zev B. <ze...@st...> - 2005-03-21 03:02:18
|
Hi, I've been wrestling with getting UML to run under an installer (Linux/Athena), and I've run into some ubd naming issues. The installer looks at /proc/partitions to ensure that you've entered a valid partition name. Under a 2.6.10 UML, that file shows devices with names like ubda and ubdb1. Under a 2.4.27 UML, that file shows devices with names like ubd/disc0/disk and ubd/disc1/part1. The problem is that I'm trying to do the install under 2.6.10 (afs drivers don't seem to work under 2.4) and /dev only has devices that look like /dev/ubd/0 (/dev/ubd/disc0, etc.). Without devfs, there are only /dev/ubdX (X an integer). In other words, /dev/ubd[abc,etc] don't exist. Do I have to make symlinks, is this a bug in uml, or is this an ongoing naming migration issue? Can someone tell me what's going on with ubd naming? Thank you very much. Zev Benjamin |
From: Frank S. <fr...@tu...> - 2005-03-21 05:12:19
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Zev Benjamin wrote: | Hi, | I've been wrestling with getting UML to run under an installer | (Linux/Athena), and I've run into some ubd naming issues. The installer | looks at /proc/partitions to ensure that you've entered a valid | partition name. Under a 2.6.10 UML, that file shows devices with names | like ubda and ubdb1. Under a 2.4.27 UML, that file shows devices with | names like ubd/disc0/disk and ubd/disc1/part1. The problem is that I'm | trying to do the install under 2.6.10 (afs drivers don't seem to work | under 2.4) and /dev only has devices that look like /dev/ubd/0 | (/dev/ubd/disc0, etc.). Without devfs, there are only /dev/ubdX (X an | integer). In other words, /dev/ubd[abc,etc] don't exist. Do I have to | make symlinks, is this a bug in uml, or is this an ongoing naming | migration issue? Can someone tell me what's going on with ubd naming? | | Thank you very much. | | | Zev Benjamin If you've got udev (replacement for devfs), they should be created automatically. If not (you've got a static /dev), you can create the device nodes. You may find this script handy: http://www.linode.com/~caker/uml/makeUBDdev.sh Frank - -- Frank Sorenson - KD7TZK Systems Manager, Computer Science Department Brigham Young University fr...@tu... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCPlelaI0dwg4A47wRAl+pAKCtvptVCKuJYf0WCCi1QFTNcCuOuwCfbN79 +gxTfqZtVl6DxlIqYQ5vPiU= =E5Wl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Blaisorblade <bla...@ya...> - 2005-03-22 19:58:16
|
On Monday 21 March 2005 04:06, Zev Benjamin wrote: > Hi, > I've been wrestling with getting UML to run under an installer > (Linux/Athena), and I've run into some ubd naming issues. The installer > looks at /proc/partitions to ensure that you've entered a valid > partition name. Under a 2.6.10 UML, that file shows devices with names > like ubda and ubdb1. Under a 2.4.27 UML, that file shows devices with > names like ubd/disc0/disk and ubd/disc1/part1. This is a no-DevFS vs. DevFS difference, or at least it should be. > The problem is that I'm > trying to do the install under 2.6.10 (afs drivers don't seem to work > under 2.4) and /dev only has devices that look like /dev/ubd/0 > (/dev/ubd/disc0, etc.). If 2.6 UML uses the non-devfs names in /proc/partitions, then it might be a bug (but probably due to general issues and not to UML). This is the only possible bug I see in your report, and if verified is a real one. The /dev normal entries (i.e. with non-DevFS naming) should be created if running devfsd. > Without devfs, there are only /dev/ubdX (X an > integer). In other words, /dev/ubd[abc,etc] don't exist. This only depends on the admin setup, i.e. the admin or the installer manually creates those nodes. > Do I have to > make symlinks, is this a bug in uml, or is this an ongoing naming > migration issue? Can someone tell me what's going on with ubd naming? > Thank you very much. -- Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade Linux registered user n. 292729 http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade |
From: Jim C. <ji...@ma...> - 2005-03-24 21:57:56
|
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005, Zev Benjamin wrote: > a 2.6.10 UML, that file shows devices with names like ubda and ubdb1. Under a > 2.4.27 UML, that file shows devices with names like ubd/disc0/disk and > ubd/disc1/part1. The problem is that I'm trying to do the install under > 2.6.10 (afs drivers don't seem to work under 2.4) and /dev only has devices > that look like /dev/ubd/0 (/dev/ubd/disc0, etc.). Without devfs, there are > only /dev/ubdX (X an integer). In other words, /dev/ubd[abc,etc] don't exist. > Do I have to make symlinks, is this a bug in uml, or is this an ongoing naming > migration issue? Can someone tell me what's going on with ubd naming? Between kernels 2.4.x and 2.6.x the naming scheme got changed. Formerly there were only 8 discs named ubd0..7. Now these are referred to as ubda..h, and they can (but are not required to) have partitions, i.e. ubda1, ubda2... The minor device is 16*$disc + $partition, i.e. for ubdb2 (partition 2, disc b) you need to do "mknod /dev/ubdb2 b 98 18". I don't know if you've always been able to do this in kernel 2.4.x (but nobody ever did it). To partition your disc you can use Gnu parted from within UML, or you can do it on the host, specifying the image file name, and reassuring parted that it's OK to write on the boot sector of a plain file. The only problem is, there's no easy way on the host to mount a partition (that I know of). You need a working UML, and you temporarily attach the image file to it and do your thing. uml_mconsole only knows about the ubd0..7 names, at the moment. If you're using devfs or udev, and kernel 2.6.x in the guest, the device inodes are auto-created as /dev/ubd[a-h] and /dev/ubd[a-h][0-9], the latter only if a partition table is present. But if you're hand-creating inodes you can call them anything you want, for the convenience of the 2.4.x-style installation scripts you mention. James F. Carter Voice 310 825 2897 FAX 310 206 6673 UCLA-Mathnet; 6115 MSA; 405 Hilgard Ave.; Los Angeles, CA, USA 90095-1555 Email: ji...@ma... http://www.math.ucla.edu/~jimc (q.v. for PGP key) |
From: Jelle B. <uml...@ni...> - 2005-03-24 22:13:54
|
On Thursday 24 March 2005 22:57, Jim Carter wrote: > The only problem is, there's no easy way on the host to mount a partition > (that I know of). =A0You need a working UML, and you temporarily attach t= he > image file to it and do your thing. Blaisorblade posted a handy script here a while back that lets you do that.= =20 You nee to tell mount to use an offset to skip to the first partition (I=20 suppose you can mount other partitions with the right offset too, don't kno= w=20 if the script supports this though) What I have not found yet is a way to create a filesystem on a newly=20 partitioned file without resorting to a uml.=20 =2D-=20 with kind regards, Jelle Booomstra |
From: Blaisorblade <bla...@ya...> - 2005-03-30 18:46:23
|
On Thursday 24 March 2005 23:14, Jelle Boomstra wrote: > On Thursday 24 March 2005 22:57, Jim Carter wrote: > > The only problem is, there's no easy way on the host to mount a partiti= on > > (that I know of). =A0You need a working UML, and you temporarily attach= the > > image file to it and do your thing. > > Blaisorblade posted a handy script here a while back that lets you do tha= t. > You nee to tell mount to use an offset to skip to the first partition (I > suppose you can mount other partitions with the right offset too, don't > know if the script supports this though) > > What I have not found yet is a way to create a filesystem on a newly > partitioned file without resorting to a uml. Loopmount the partition in the file with the right offset and do what you=20 need. Obviously, if you are talking about COW files, you are right - there is sti= ll=20 no way to do what you need. =2D-=20 Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade Linux registered user n. 292729 http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade |