Is it still advisable to use xvda instead of sda in the fstab and cfg files? When I check the guest OS [root@localhost ~]# fdisk -l Disk /dev/xvda1: 1073 MB, 1073741824 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 130 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk /dev/xvda1 doesn''t contain a valid partition table Disk /dev/xvda2: 268 MB, 268435456 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 32 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk /dev/xvda2 doesn''t contain a valid partition table [root@localhost ~]# Is this "Disk /dev/xvda2 doesn''t contain a valid partition table" normal? _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 2:48 AM, fmb fmb<feedmb@googlemail.com> wrote:> Is it still advisable to use xvda instead of sda in the fstab and cfg files?It is recommended. One of the reasons is that newer pv_ops kernel will silently use xvda regardless of what you put on cfg file :P> Is this "Disk /dev/xvda2 doesn''t contain a valid partition table" normal?If you assign domU storage directly as xvda2, then it''s normal. -- Fajar _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
thnx :) On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 4:39 AM, Fajar A. Nugraha <fajar@fajar.net> wrote:> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 2:48 AM, fmb fmb<feedmb@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Is it still advisable to use xvda instead of sda in the fstab and cfg > files? > > It is recommended. One of the reasons is that newer pv_ops kernel will > silently use xvda regardless of what you put on cfg file :P > > > Is this "Disk /dev/xvda2 doesn''t contain a valid partition table" normal? > > If you assign domU storage directly as xvda2, then it''s normal. > > -- > Fajar >_______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users