[ale] changes to fstab in fedora 20
Scott Castaline
skotchman at gmail.com
Wed Mar 12 09:50:30 EDT 2014
Jim, I had just run badblocks on all 3 drives with no errors. I had run
it also on my boot drive a couple of days earlier, also no errors. The
one drive that did have errors out of the original five is already
pulled out of the loop.
I had originally ran on all five drives:
smartctl test both short & long (with the expected one failure and the
other four passed)
badblocks (again had the one drive expected failure the other four were
fine)
dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/sda-d (I did the boot drive first separately,
the remaining 3 I ran simultaneously)
Then the 2 LUKS commands on each drive (Format & Open)
The 3 LVM commands on each drive (pvcreate, vgcreate & lvcreate)
This morning I had commented out the mounting of the LVs in fstab. Once
booted I did an fsck on one of the LVs in question which completed as
fast as I hit enter, but then I have no data on this LV just an empty
lost+found, and I've never ran fsck on an empty fs before so I'm not
sure how fast it can be. As I said before the mkfs.ext4 time was much
faster than what I'm used to particularly on a 931G LV.
Paul, in answer to your question, no I don't set the partition table
before doing any of this. I haven't since I started using LUKS/LVM and
haven't had any problems. I don't however span VGs over multiple PVs
currently, so I don't know if not setting the table (using fdisk, gdisk,
etc) will create problem when spanning VGs across multiple PVs.
Scott C.
On 03/12/2014 08:26 AM, Jim Kinney wrote:
>
> Try running badblocks on that drive from a live CD.
> A sector error at a partition boundary is a mess like this.
>
> On Mar 11, 2014 11:37 PM, "Scott Castaline" <skotchman at gmail.com
> <mailto:skotchman at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Okay, so now I have noticed an error message which indicates to
> use systemctl status pub-Downloads.mount, to see more info. It's
> complaining about the ext4 fs and the superblock is bad. I've done
> this about 6 times and get the same results. I have always just
> created the fs by "mkfs.ext4 </path/to/device>" which for this one
> would be /dev/mapper/ncc1701_02-pub_dnlds. I always thought that
> fs type was specified in the .ext4 part of mkfs. I've never used
> any other options except on occasion I used -L for labeling the fs
> for whatever reasons. I did notice that it seemed to do the fs
> rather quick, other than that I didn't notice any problems with
> the initialization process.
>
> Below is excerpt of system log:
>
> Mar 11 22:53:51 ncc1701 mount: mount: wrong fs type, bad option,
> bad superblock on /dev/mapper/ncc1701_02-pub_dnlds,
> Mar 11 22:53:51 ncc1701 mount: missing codepage or helper program,
> or other error
> Mar 11 22:53:51 ncc1701 mount: In some cases useful info is found
> in syslog - try
> Mar 11 22:53:51 ncc1701 mount: dmesg | tail or so.
>
> Mar 11 22:53:51 ncc1701 systemd: pub-Downloads.mount mount process
> exited, code=exited status=32
> Mar 11 22:53:51 ncc1701 systemd: Failed to mount /pub/Downloads.
> Mar 11 22:53:51 ncc1701 systemd: Dependency failed for Local File
> Systems.
> Mar 11 22:53:51 ncc1701 systemd: Dependency failed for Mark the
> need to relabel after reboot.
>
> the gap between the mount and the systemd entries had stuff not
> related to the problem.
>
> Aside from scrapping the system and doing a full re-install
> anything else that I should try? Are their new options that I
> should be using that I'm not seeing in the man pages? I don't want
> to re-install as what will I do when I replace the drive that lead
> to this mess, re-install again?
>
> Scott C.
>
> On 03/11/2014 11:00 PM, Jim Kinney wrote:
>>
>> I do believe you are correct. A F20 encrypted laptop shows a pair
>> of partitions, one is boot the other is a type 83 . Pvscan shows
>> the source as being inside a container called luks-<long string
>> UUID type> with lvms inside it. Fstab shows / as type ext4 with
>> options default, x-systemd.device-timeout=0
>>
>> The /dev/mapper/ luks-* links to ../dm0. The lvms links to
>> dm1,dm2, etc.
>>
>> It would not make sense to force lvm to understand encryption so
>> it must be the lvm container. Um. Duh.
>>
>> On Mar 11, 2014 5:49 PM, "Derek Atkins" <derek at ihtfp.com
>> <mailto:derek at ihtfp.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, your thinking is faulty.
>>
>> When you install a system with encrypted disk the installer
>> creates a /boot partition and a crypt partition. Then creates
>> / and swap inside an lvm inside the crypt. When I get back
>> to my laptop I can show you all the partition info that shows
>> this.
>>
>> -derek
>>
>> Sent from my HTC smartphone
>>
>>
>> ----- Reply message -----
>> From: "Jim Kinney" <jim.kinney at gmail.com
>> <mailto:jim.kinney at gmail.com>>
>> To: "Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts" <ale at ale.org
>> <mailto:ale at ale.org>>
>> Subject: [ale] changes to fstab in fedora 20
>> Date: Tue, Mar 11, 2014 5:37 PM
>>
>>
>> I'll have to double check my laptop at home. I know the
>> installer will do the RightThing automagically so that's the
>> easiest way to fix it.
>>
>> Seems like the PV has to be outside the crypt container at
>> the least as individual LVs can be crypted. Usuall routine is
>> to crypt everything but /boot so even swap get protected. In
>> Fedora, default setup is a /boot, a PV with a single LV that
>> contains / and swap and /home partitions. Thus my (probably
>> faulty) thinking that the encryption occurs inside the LV itself.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Derek Atkins
>> <derek at ihtfp.com <mailto:derek at ihtfp.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I think you have those commands backwards. If you want to
>> create an encrypted drive ala the installer I think you
>> need to cryptsetup, then pvcreate, then lvcreate, then
>> mkfs. This mirrors what my encrypted system looks like.
>> The lvm is inside the crypto.
>>
>> -derek
>>
>> Sent from my HTC smartphone
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Reply message -----
>> From: "Jim Kinney" <jim.kinney at gmail.com
>> <mailto:jim.kinney at gmail.com>>
>> To: "Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts" <ale at ale.org
>> <mailto:ale at ale.org>>
>> Subject: [ale] changes to fstab in fedora 20
>> Date: Tue, Mar 11, 2014 5:03 PM
>>
>>
>> I know the encrypt drives process JustWorks during
>> _installation_ of F20. I'm 90% certain it encrypts the
>> contents of an LVM and not the other way around. If you
>> encrypt a container that holds PVM/LVM IDs, the kernel
>> will not know how to use it (I think - still digging in
>> systemd as well). Also, F20 is using grub2 which is also
>> a vertical learning curve.
>>
>> I think you need to go the following order:
>>
>> pvcreate
>> lvcreate
>> cryptsetup
>> mkfs
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Scott Castaline
>> <skotchman at gmail.com <mailto:skotchman at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Anyone understand the changes made to filesystem
>> mounting at boot-time in Fedora 20? Apparently
>> systemd now controls it all? The reason i ask is that
>> when I had originally upgraded to F 20 I had setup
>> all 5 drives in the installer. Since then everytime
>> the door leading to the garage, under the room my
>> systems are in, slams shut it causes the floor to pop
>> up and my system will sometimes jump. Normally
>> everyone is careful about opening and closing this
>> door and I had also moved the computers over to the
>> other side of the room the last time I went through
>> the hassle of crashed drives. This one day was
>> exceptionally windy and the door really slammed hard.
>> Immediately I started getting warnings of read/write
>> errors, bad sectors, etc., etc. on one drive then 2
>> more drives suddenly unmounted. The system then
>> rebooted itself and never came back up.
>>
>> Since it was toast I went ahead and ran smartctl
>> tests followed by badblocks which pointed to my 4th
>> drive (hmm not the 5th or 3rd drives). I then ran dd
>> if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/sd? on the remaining 4
>> drives. I did the boot drive seperately so that I
>> could get my system at least partially back up. I
>> reinstalled F 20 with just the one hdd figuring that
>> the remaining 3 drive I could manually add back in.
>> By the way I don't use raid so that is not to be
>> figured into my problem, I do however setup LUKS on
>> the raw device followed by LVM. My steps are:
>>
>> 1. cryptsetup luksFormat /dev/sd? (exact syntax maybe
>> wrong as I'm doing this by memory which admittedly
>> has gone downhill lately).
>>
>> 2. blkid /dev/sd? (to get the luks UUID of the drive
>> for the next 2 steps)
>>
>> 3. cryptsetup luksOpen /dev/sd? luks-<Block UUID >
>>
>> 4. pvcreate /dev/mapper/luks-<Block UUID >
>>
>> 5. vgcreate <name used for vg>
>> /dev/mapper/luks-<Block UUID >
>>
>> 6. lvcreate -L <size of lv> -n <name of lv> <name of vg>
>>
>> 7. mkfs.ext4 /dev/mapper/vg-name/lv-name
>>
>> 8. I'll go ahead and mount it where I plan to mount
>> it in fstab and verify that all is well.
>>
>> 9. Add the luks UUID in /etc/crypttab and enter the
>> mounting info of the lv in fstab. (This is where it
>> is different. I noticed that the mount options part
>> is different from the past in that it'll have
>> "defaults;x-systemd.device-timeout=0 1 2" on lvs that
>> were created by the installer. So I duplicated this
>> for the lvs that I added.
>>
>> 10. Unmount lvs, close luks volume and reboot.
>>
>> The system will then either hang on boot or dump out
>> to maintenance mode when trying to mount my lv. I can
>> however manually mount the lv and the boot will
>> continue. So what's the deal? Anyone know? This is
>> the way I've done it in the past with NFP. I found
>> the docs on this very confusing in that it keeps on
>> referring to something else which will refer to
>> something else again, so on & so on, eventually it
>> goes around in a circle.
>>
>> Hellllppp Meeeeeeeeeeee (in my best human-fly
>> imitation from the spider web).
>>
>> Scott C.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ale mailing list
>> Ale at ale.org <mailto:Ale at ale.org>
>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> James P. Kinney III
>> ////
>> ////Every time you stop a school, you will have to build
>> a jail. What you gain at one end you lose at the other.
>> It's like feeding a dog on his own tail. It won't fatten
>> the dog.
>> - Speech 11/23/1900 Mark Twain
>> ////
>> http://heretothereideas.blogspot.com/
>> ////
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ale mailing list
>> Ale at ale.org <mailto:Ale at ale.org>
>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> James P. Kinney III
>> ////
>> ////Every time you stop a school, you will have to build a
>> jail. What you gain at one end you lose at the other. It's
>> like feeding a dog on his own tail. It won't fatten the dog.
>> - Speech 11/23/1900 Mark Twain
>> ////
>> http://heretothereideas.blogspot.com/
>> ////
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ale mailing list
>> Ale at ale.org <mailto:Ale at ale.org>
>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ale mailing list
>> Ale at ale.org <mailto:Ale at ale.org>
>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org <mailto:Ale at ale.org>
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20140312/08b33d28/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ale
mailing list