On 09/01/2010 05:10 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> I understand mkinitrd would not honor the options if the system sees
> certain hardware.
from where do you get this?
to my knowledge, i have in/on/around this system box to give any
indication of raid.
--
peace out.
tc,hago.
g
.
in a free
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 8:06 PM, g wrote:
>> On 08/31/2010 11:33 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> # mkinitrd --omit-raid-modules --omit-lvm-modules \
> /boot/initrd-2.6.18-164.11.1.el5.img 2.6.18-164.11.1.el5
>
> dm-* modules load on boot.
>
> added
>
> blacklist dm-[module names]
>
> to "modprobe.co
> On 08/31/2010 11:33 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
thank you for reply.
>> Are you using LVM?
>
> no. i dislike lvm almost as much as ms bs os.
>
>> If not, you might want to run mkinitrd with the following options:
>>
>> --omit-raid-modules
>> --omit-lvm-modules
tried;
# mkinitrd --omit-raid-mo
On 08/31/2010 11:33 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> Are you using LVM?
no. i dislike lvm almost as much as ms bs os.
> If not, you might want to run mkinitrd with the following options:
>
> --omit-raid-modules
> --omit-lvm-modules
it had been a while from last using "mkinitrd", so i read "man" again.
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 3:49 PM, g wrote:
>> So a mkinitrd would probably need to be done after making
>> /etc/modprobe.conf.
>
> which i did.
> i thank you for your help.
>
> i am open to other suggestions.
Are you using LVM? If not, you might want to run mkinitrd with the
following options:
On 08/31/2010 04:35 AM, Chris Stevens wrote:
> Some suggestions. First, I think that renaming the dm directory won't
> do what you want because a "modprobe -a" will rebuild the dependencies
> with the new directory names.
sounds logical.
> That's just a theory of mine that's unproven.
a go
On 31 August 2010 07:09, Isaac wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 08:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
> William Shu wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>> I forwarded this mail back in July buy got no reply. So I can use the
>> machine, does anyone have a workaround that avoids
>> changing/recompiling stock SL software/kernel? (Goo
Steven Timm a écrit :
Hi Doug--I have seen the same message on some of our machines but
so far it hasn't caused any real performance problems up until now.
It's not so much if you are running SL5.5 but just as long as you
are running some of the latest errata kernels.. we only
saw it show up on S
