search for: wipef

Hi Rich: This is a latest patch. ;-P Comments? Thanks -Wanlong Gao Wanlong Gao (2): NEW API: add a new api wipefs virt-format: erase the filesystem signatures before erase partitions TODO | 2 -- daemon/zero.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++ format/format.c | 19 ++++--------------- generator/generator_actions.ml | 14 ++++++++++++++ src/MAX_PROC_...

Hi Rich: This is a alternative patch, if you like the api name called wipefs ;-P Thanks -Wanlong Gao Wanlong Gao (2): NEW API: add a new api wipefs virt-format: erase the filesystem signatures before erase partitions TODO | 2 -- daemon/zero.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++ format/format.c | 19 ++++---------...

Hi, I have a test system that booted fine using "Legacy Bios? mode and using the following Kickstart snippet configured the disks correctly:- # Clear the Master Boot Record zerombr # Partition clearing information clearpart --all --initlabel # Disk partitioning information part raid.01 --fstype="raid" --ondisk=sda --size=500 part raid.02 --fstype="raid" --grow

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907554 In particular comments 2 & 3. We could change libguestfs's guestfs_mkfs (internally) so it always does an implicit wipefs on the filesystem. wipefs is not too onerous -- in particular I believe it only writes to a few chosen areas of the disk. Especially considering that we're about to run mkfs anyway which for some filesystems writes a lot of blocks. Thoughts? Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group,...

My wipefs has no --force option, as a result mke2fs command in guestfish fails. Looks like 72dd398679cd0bb803daf306d12558369615ba70 needs an adjustment to make use of do_wipefs? Also str_wipefs is not used in that file. Olaf

I''ve filed this bug under util-linux, because I think wipefs isn''t deleting all btrfs metadata it could. But ultimately it appears to be a btrfs bug because nothing else sees the stale volume. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889888#c15 btrfs-progs-0.20.rc1.20121017git92d9eec-1.fc18.x86_64 e2fs-progs-1.42.5-1.fc18.x86_64 kernel 3.7.1-2...

...tep I need to do to remove the original partitions before the new layout will work ? Yes. If you have pre-existing RAID partitions, they'll automatically assemble before Anaconda runs, and the installer won't be able to remove them. It's easiest to handle this interactively, using wipefs to clear the filesystems, RAID metadata, and disks. Because my systems are fairly predictable, I have a function in my kickstart file that I run from the %pre script when I specify a keyword in the boot parameters. You'll want to do something similar... Stop logical volumes if present....

On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 07:42:58PM +0100, Olaf Hering wrote: > My wipefs has no --force option, as a result mke2fs command in guestfish fails. > > Looks like 72dd398679cd0bb803daf306d12558369615ba70 needs an adjustment > to make use of do_wipefs? > Also str_wipefs is not used in that file. Also daemon/zero.c has a wipefs_has_force_option function. It see...

...s changed, 32 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/daemon/zero.c b/daemon/zero.c index 398f844..348869f 100644 --- a/daemon/zero.c +++ b/daemon/zero.c @@ -73,6 +73,23 @@ do_zero (const char *device) } int +do_zero_fs (const char *device) +{ + int r; + char *err = NULL; + + const char *wipefs[] = {"wipefs", "-a", device, NULL}; + r = commandv (NULL, &err, wipefs); + if (r == -1) { + reply_with_error ("%s", err); + free (err); + return -1; + } + free (err); + return 0; +} + +int do_zero_device (const char *device) { int64_t ssize = do...

...the original partitions before the new layout will > work ? > > > Yes. If you have pre-existing RAID partitions, they'll automatically > assemble before Anaconda runs, and the installer won't be able to remove > them. It's easiest to handle this interactively, using wipefs to clear > the filesystems, RAID metadata, and disks. Because my systems are > fairly predictable, I have a function in my kickstart file that I run > from the %pre script when I specify a keyword in the boot parameters. > You'll want to do something similar... > > Stop logi...

...@ do_mkfs_opts (const char *fstype, const char *device, int blocksize, ADD_ARG (argv, i, device); ADD_ARG (argv, i, NULL); + /* we wipe the filesystem signatures from device before do mkfs, + * since we can't trust mkfs can remove the filesystem signature absolutely. + */ + if (do_wipefs (device)) { + reply_with_error ("%s: %s: %s", fstype, device, err); + free (err); + return -1; + } + r = commandv (NULL, &err, argv); if (r == -1) { reply_with_error ("%s: %s: %s", fstype, device, err); -- 1.7.9

...26, 2010 at 05:42:21PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > > In any case I'll probably write a small utility which just zaps the > > > > partition table without touching the rest of the bootloader. > > > > > > Maybe we can add this functionality to wipefs(8), libblkid is already > > > able to detect and parse almost all partition table formats. > > > > Coincidentally I tried using wipefs within libguestfs (but not > > successfully yet). It really only wipes filesystems, which I guess > > should be obvious from th...

On Sun, Jan 19, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > How about the attached patch (only compile-tested)? This patch works for me. Thanks. Olaf

Folks I've encountered situations where I want to reuse a hard-drive. I do not want to preserve anything on the drive, and I'm not concerned about 'securely erasing' old content. I just want to be able to define it as an Physical Volume (in a logical volume set), or make it a ZFS disk, or sometimes make it a simple EXT3, ExFAT or NTFS disk. However, old

Hello! Long time ago I created btrfs on /dev/sda After some changes btrfs moved to /dev/sda1 (well, to md, and sda1 is part of md). As result, <btrfs fi show> show me 2 filesystems: new one and old one. Probably I need to do some cleaning. Can someone tell me what to do. fdisk -u -c -l /dev/sda Disk /dev/sda: 2000.4 GB, 2000398934016 bytes 81 heads, 63 sectors/track, 765633 cylinders,

- Ahh OK now I see why I was confused. The originally posted partition map uses cylinders as units, not LBA. I missed that. Cylinder 1 is the same as LBA 63. And that is sufficiently large for a GRUB legacy stage 2. - OK this is screwy. Partitions 1 and 3 on both drives have the same number of sectors, but partitions 2 differ: /dev/hde2 401,625 975,691,709 975,290,085 fd Linux

.../dev/sda2: PTTYPE="dos" + blkid -o udev ID_FS_UUID=2016-10-28-12-18-36-00 ID_FS_UUID_ENC=2016-10-28-12-18-36-00 ID_FS_LABEL=CentOS_7_x86_64 ID_FS_LABEL_ENC=CentOS\x207\x20x86_64 ID_FS_TYPE=iso9660 ID_PART_TABLE_TYPE=dos To fix the problem, I booted the system from a livecd and used "wipefs" utility to erase the problematic signature "dos" and leave only the correct one "LVM_member". The exact command was: 'wipefs -o 0x1fe -ff /dev/sda2' [root at localhost ~]# blkid /dev/sr0: UUID="2016-10-28-12-18-36-00" LABEL="CentOS 7 x86_64"...

Dear fellow CentOS users, I have never experienced this problem with hard disk management before and cannot explain it to myself on any rational basis. The setup: I have a workstation for testing, running latest CentOS 7.3 AMD64. I am evaluating oVirt and a storage-ha as part of my bachelors thesis. I have already been running a RAID1 (mdraid, lvm2) for the system and some oVirt 4.1 testing.

...e can run. *NB* before you run this, adjust /dev/sda & /dev/sda1 to point to an unused block device! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- #!/bin/sh - set -e while true; do parted -s -- /dev/sda mklabel msdos parted -s -- /dev/sda mkpart primary 64s -64s wipefs -a /dev/sda1 mkfs.btrfs --label TEST /dev/sda1 mount /dev/sda1 /sysroot touch /sysroot/foo mkdir /sysroot/bar umount /sysroot done ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On the latest 3.8.0 kernel, this fails immediately (at the mount), and on 3.7.x it us...

Hello If I want to manage a complete disk with btrfs, what''s the "Best Practice"? Would it be best to create the btrfs filesystem on "/dev/sdb", or would it be better to create just one partition from start to end and then do "mkfs.btrfs /dev/sdb1"? Would the same recomendation hold true, if we''re talking about huge disks, like 4TB or so?