Hi, What I thought was going to be pretty simple, has turned out not to be. It seems that it is not possible to specify two "file:" devices in the disk= [] option. If I try to do so, all I get from this line: disk = [''file:/images/ats/swap,hda2,w'',''file:/images/ats/root_fs,hda1,w''] is: Error: Device 769 (vbd) could not be connected. Backend device not found. Or is it that I''m doing something really silly? :) _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Monday 26 June 2006 13:08, Dave Smif wrote:> What I thought was going to be pretty simple, has turned out not to be. > > It seems that it is not possible to specify two "file:" devices in the > disk= [] option. If I try to do so, all I get from this line: > > disk = [''file:/images/ats/swap,hda2,w'',''file:/images/ats/root_fs,hda1,w''] > > is: > > Error: Device 769 (vbd) could not be connected. Backend device not found. > > Or is it that I''m doing something really silly? :)Firstly a silly question then, does /images/ats/swap actually exist? :) I''ve got a space after the comma separating multiple file/phy instances, and it works fine. These two configs work equally well: disk = [''file:/home/xen/gentoo.2006-0-0.img,xvda1,w'', ''file:/home/xen/gentoo.2006-0-0.swap,xvda2,w'']; disk = [ ''phy:mapper/moo-2006--0--0,xvda1,w'', ''file:/home/xen/gentoo.2006-0-0.swap,xvda2,w'' ]; -- Mike Williams System Administration Manager - Comodo Office Tel Europe: +44 (0) 161 8747070 Fax Europe: +44 (0) 161 8771767 _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Same here, I''m thinking perhaps the filename was fat-fingered or there''s a whitespace that isn''t screaming out at everyone due to mangling by mail clients. This is my config for my openQRM dom-u which works fine : disk=[''file:/images/dom-u/openqrm.72.232.33.70.img,sda1,w'',''file:/images/dom-u/openqrm.72.232.33.70.swap,sda2,w''] I''m kidn of anal about how I name the devices vs what the loops are physically being stored on but afiak it shouldn''t matter with a file backed vbd. HTH Tim On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 13:28 +0100, Mike Williams wrote:> On Monday 26 June 2006 13:08, Dave Smif wrote: > > What I thought was going to be pretty simple, has turned out not to be. > > > > It seems that it is not possible to specify two "file:" devices in the > > disk= [] option. If I try to do so, all I get from this line: > > > > disk = [''file:/images/ats/swap,hda2,w'',''file:/images/ats/root_fs,hda1,w''] > > > > is: > > > > Error: Device 769 (vbd) could not be connected. Backend device not found. > > > > Or is it that I''m doing something really silly? :) > > Firstly a silly question then, does /images/ats/swap actually exist? :) > I''ve got a space after the comma separating multiple file/phy instances, and it works fine. > These two configs work equally well: > disk = [''file:/home/xen/gentoo.2006-0-0.img,xvda1,w'', ''file:/home/xen/gentoo.2006-0-0.swap,xvda2,w'']; > disk = [ ''phy:mapper/moo-2006--0--0,xvda1,w'', ''file:/home/xen/gentoo.2006-0-0.swap,xvda2,w'' ]; > >_______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 08:34:46PM +0800, Tim Post wrote:> Same here, I''m thinking perhaps the filename was fat-fingered or there''s > a whitespace that isn''t screaming out at everyone due to mangling by > mail clients.Possibly running out of loop devices? http://xen-tools.org/software/xen-tools/faq.html#5 Steve -- _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Also make sure that /dev/hda1 and /dev/hda2 exists om the dom0. That''s not always the case when you use udev. If not create them with /dev/MAKEDEV. Marcus Steve Kemp wrote:> On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 08:34:46PM +0800, Tim Post wrote: > >> Same here, I''m thinking perhaps the filename was fat-fingered or there''s >> a whitespace that isn''t screaming out at everyone due to mangling by >> mail clients. >> > > Possibly running out of loop devices? > > http://xen-tools.org/software/xen-tools/faq.html#5 > > Steve >_______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Thanks all. Its working now, but to fix it what I did was to reboot? Fromj this, I would guess it was something to do with the loop devices. I have the default 8 loop devices (0 to 7). The bizarre thing is.... I was only using 2... or so I thought? Ho hum. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Just to be sure - I did some testing. I opened up a whole bunch of virtual machines, all using loop devices. When I hit the 3rd one, I got the same error again. I followed the FAQ, and bumped up to 255 devices, as suggested. I shutdown all the domains, removed the loop module, and restarted. This time the 3rd one came up. Strangely enough, it seems the 3rd device it tries to open is loop10: root@dev02:/dev# lsof | grep loop loop10 10210 root cwd DIR 8,1 464 2 / loop10 10210 root rtd DIR 8,1 464 2 / loop10 10210 root txt unknown /proc/10210/exe loop0 11330 root cwd DIR 8,1 464 2 / loop0 11330 root rtd DIR 8,1 464 2 / loop0 11330 root txt unknown /proc/11330/exe loop1 12495 root cwd DIR 8,1 464 2 / loop1 12495 root rtd DIR 8,1 464 2 / loop1 12495 root txt unknown /proc/12495/exe Seems bizarre to me! On 6/26/06, Dave Smif <systemsconsultant@gmail.com> wrote:> Thanks all. Its working now, but to fix it what I did was to reboot? > > Fromj this, I would guess it was something to do with the loop > devices. I have the default 8 loop devices (0 to 7). The bizarre thing > is.... I was only using 2... or so I thought? Ho hum. >_______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Hi Dave I had the same problem and what I discovered was that while it would make sense that Xen would use loop0, then loop1, then loop2, then loop3 etc ... it doesn''t. Instead what xen does is: use loop0, then loop1, then loop10, then loop11, then loop12 and so on. Why? My guess is that it probably uses the same logic of `ls`. If you run `ls /dev/loop*` (running `ls -l /dev/loop*` and `ls -1 /dev/loop*` will yield the same sorting of the list but in a slightly different format ;-)) you will get the following output: $ ls /dev/loop* /dev/loop0 /dev/loop11 /dev/loop14 /dev/loop3 /dev/loop6 /dev/loop9 /dev/loop1 /dev/loop12 /dev/loop15 /dev/loop4 /dev/loop7 /dev/loop10 /dev/loop13 /dev/loop2 /dev/loop5 /dev/loop8 The sorting is from the left most column down etc .... So even if you are using less than 8 devices but your /dev has more than 9 bringing up the 3rd loop device will fail if your kernel is configured to support 8 loop devices but you /dev directory has more than 10 loop devices. TIA Paolo Dave Smif wrote:> Thanks all. Its working now, but to fix it what I did was to reboot? > > Fromj this, I would guess it was something to do with the loop > devices. I have the default 8 loop devices (0 to 7). The bizarre thing > is.... I was only using 2... or so I thought? Ho hum. > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-users mailing list > Xen-users@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users >_______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
That sounds like a bug to me then? Surely it should use a numerical sort order in this case? _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 11:13 +0100, Dave Smif wrote:> That sounds like a bug to me then? Surely it should use a numerical > sort order in this case?This is exactly the behavior of the sort command. -- Graham Campbell <gc1111@optonline.net> _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Exactly. It really makes sense to me to sort! dave@linuxdev:/dev$ ls -la loop* brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 0 1996-06-04 02:47 loop0 brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 1 1996-06-04 02:47 loop1 brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 10 2002-03-20 01:13 loop10 brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 11 2002-03-20 01:13 loop11 brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 12 2002-03-20 01:13 loop12 brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 13 2002-03-20 01:13 loop13 brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 14 2002-03-20 01:13 loop14 brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 15 2002-03-20 01:13 loop15 brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 2 1996-06-04 02:47 loop2 brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 3 1996-06-04 02:47 loop3 brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 4 1996-06-04 02:47 loop4 brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 5 1996-06-04 02:47 loop5 brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 6 1996-06-04 02:47 loop6 brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 7 1996-06-04 02:47 loop7 brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 8 1996-06-04 02:48 loop8 brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 9 2002-03-20 01:13 loop9 dave@linuxdev:/dev$ ls -la loop* | sort brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 0 1996-06-04 02:47 loop0 brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 1 1996-06-04 02:47 loop1 brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 2 1996-06-04 02:47 loop2 brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 3 1996-06-04 02:47 loop3 brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 4 1996-06-04 02:47 loop4 brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 5 1996-06-04 02:47 loop5 brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 6 1996-06-04 02:47 loop6 brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 7 1996-06-04 02:47 loop7 brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 8 1996-06-04 02:48 loop8 brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 9 2002-03-20 01:13 loop9 brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 10 2002-03-20 01:13 loop10 brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 11 2002-03-20 01:13 loop11 brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 12 2002-03-20 01:13 loop12 brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 13 2002-03-20 01:13 loop13 brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 14 2002-03-20 01:13 loop14 brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 15 2002-03-20 01:13 loop15 On 6/27/06, Graham Campbell <gc1111@optonline.net> wrote:> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 11:13 +0100, Dave Smif wrote: > > That sounds like a bug to me then? Surely it should use a numerical > > sort order in this case? > > This is exactly the behavior of the sort command. > -- > Graham Campbell <gc1111@optonline.net> > >_______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 17:49 +0100, Dave Smif wrote:> Exactly. It really makes sense to me to sort! > > dave@linuxdev:/dev$ ls -la loop* > brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 0 1996-06-04 02:47 loop0 > brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 1 1996-06-04 02:47 loop1 > brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 10 2002-03-20 01:13 loop10 > brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 11 2002-03-20 01:13 loop11 > brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 12 2002-03-20 01:13 loop12 > brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 13 2002-03-20 01:13 loop13 > brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 14 2002-03-20 01:13 loop14 > brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 15 2002-03-20 01:13 loop15 > brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 2 1996-06-04 02:47 loop2 > brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 3 1996-06-04 02:47 loop3 > brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 4 1996-06-04 02:47 loop4 > brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 5 1996-06-04 02:47 loop5 > brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 6 1996-06-04 02:47 loop6 > brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 7 1996-06-04 02:47 loop7 > brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 8 1996-06-04 02:48 loop8 > brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 9 2002-03-20 01:13 loop9 > > dave@linuxdev:/dev$ ls -la loop* | sort > brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 0 1996-06-04 02:47 loop0 > brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 1 1996-06-04 02:47 loop1 > brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 2 1996-06-04 02:47 loop2 > brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 3 1996-06-04 02:47 loop3 > brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 4 1996-06-04 02:47 loop4 > brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 5 1996-06-04 02:47 loop5 > brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 6 1996-06-04 02:47 loop6 > brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 7 1996-06-04 02:47 loop7 > brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 8 1996-06-04 02:48 loop8 > brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 9 2002-03-20 01:13 loop9 > brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 10 2002-03-20 01:13 loop10 > brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 11 2002-03-20 01:13 loop11 > brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 12 2002-03-20 01:13 loop12 > brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 13 2002-03-20 01:13 loop13 > brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 14 2002-03-20 01:13 loop14 > brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 15 2002-03-20 01:13 loop15 > > > On 6/27/06, Graham Campbell <gc1111@optonline.net> wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 11:13 +0100, Dave Smif wrote: > > > That sounds like a bug to me then? Surely it should use a numerical > > > sort order in this case? > > > > This is exactly the behavior of the sort command. > > -- > > Graham Campbell <gc1111@optonline.net> > > > >I finally go around to looking at this again. By using the long list format you are sorting on the device number, not the name. (sort starts from the left of the line). Here is a more relevant result (note -1 is dash-one, not dash-ell): [gc@sirius ~/test]$ ls -1 test#0 test#1 test#10 test#11 test#12 test#2 test#3 test#4 test#5 test#6 test#7 test#8 test#9 [gc@sirius ~/test]$ ls -1|sort test#0 test#1 test#10 test#11 test#12 test#2 test#3 test#4 test#5 test#6 test#7 test#8 test#9 -- Graham Campbell <gc1111@optonline.net> _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users