On 4/12/15 6:21 PM, Alexander Lobodzinski wrote: > On 12.4.15 23:45, Michael Tiernan wrote: >> What *sometimes* happens is that the new/replacement drive is bad or >> also going dumb. When this happens, at times, instead of it being "Drive >> #1", it is ignored and not counted and then what will happen when the >> kickstart proceeds is that the *SECOND* drive in the system, the first >> data drive, aka "Drive #2" will get wiped out and the system built on >> it.[2] This is not the desired result. > Just as an ad-hoc idea, although it does not really answer the > interesting questions posed by your situation: would it be feasible to > use new/replacement drives that are different in some aspect from the > other (data) drives? Actually that's one of the paths I've been pursuing as a sanity check during my kickstart development.
Someone else suggested in this thread pulling out the other drives after replacing the #0 drive but that fails for a few reasons. (I can explain if anyone cares.) So far, it's a calculated risk if the kickstart will damage a data drive and not work as planned but I want to minimise that and allow for an automated build process that I can rely on (and thereby let others trigger). I'm running some test scenarios now to see what sort of tests I can do and rely on, that's why this whole thread came to life. And thanks to everyone for their feedback and suggestions. As soon as I find a reasonable solution, I'll post it if anyone cares. -- << MCT >> Michael C Tiernan. http://www.linkedin.com/in/mtiernan Non Impediti Ratione Cogatationis Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea. -Robert A. Heinlein _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
