Re: RH9 upgrade to FC3 fails with Adaptec I2O ZCR raid

I attempted to upgrade my RH9 (2.4.20-37.9) system to FC3 (2.6.9 I
believe is the release on the CDs).
I was able to get into Anaconda (by adding the I2O Block driver at the
"add Driver" screen) and to the section where I chose either a Fresh
install or an upgrade.
The first time I reached that point, the upgrade portion specified the
hdb (sdb) drive, which is my "backup" drive. The drive I need to
upgrade is hda (sda). I then power cycled the system and removed the
sdb drive to make sure nothing on that drive is touched.
I reached the same Fresh or Upgrade point, and this time the hda
(/dev/i2o/hda8) drive showed properly. I chose upgrade, and this error
appears:
Error mounting device sda8 as /: No such file or directory

Hmmm, think there is some problem with the partition naming...
One 2.4.x kernel you most likely used the dpt_i2o module, but on 2.6.x kernel the default is the i2o_block module... So the device names change from /dev/sdaX to /dev/i2o/hdaX... I don't know for sure, but probably in /etc/fstab there are device names instead of labels. Something like:
...
/dev/sda8 / ext2 defaults 1 0
...
And because the device names change FC3 couldn't mount /dev/sda8
anymore...

The current fstab is:
/dev/sda8 / ext3 defaults 1 1
/dev/sda1 /boot ext3 defaults 1 2
/dev/sda7 /usr/local ext3 defaults 1 2
/dev/sda2 /var/lib/mysql ext3 defaults 1 2
/dev/sda5 /var/log/httpd ext3 defaults 1 2
/dev/sda6 /var/www ext3 defaults 1 2
/dev/sda3 swap swap defaults 0 0

OK...

Since I was not successful on the install, I did not add/change the
/dev/sda# to /dev/i2o/hda#.  (Device names do change from /dev/sdL# in
RH to /dev/i2o/hdL# in FC3+.)

The problem with changing /etc/fstab is, if the upgrade doesn't work for some reason you won't be able to boot into the "old" system without changing it back...

But i would guess that it will work, if you change it before upgrading...

In my pay job I am don't have the ability to use LABEL on a partition. Are you thinking I may be able to change the /dev/sda# to LABEL and
install that way? Since the Fresh and the Upgrade install "found" the

After the upgrade you have to be carefull with labels, because if you also load i2o_scsi you could access each disk of the RAID array. In case of RAID-1 you finally have 3 disks with the same label, which could break your whole system...

drive successfully, I wouldn't think that Anaconda reads the fstab. (I'm not familiar with Anaconda, so my logic could be wrong.)

Hmmm, i couldn't say for sure, but the /dev/sda8 must come from somewhere... Are you sure that the "dpt_i2o" and "i2o_scsi" module is not loaded? Because both would provide access to /dev/sda8...

Do I determine this during the upgrade by going to Alt-F2 (I think it is) and doing a lsmod? And, if they are loaded, should I modprobe one or both out?

Are there different SCSI RAID that are better supported than the ZCR? If so, which ones?

Press OK to reboot your system.
The only action at this point is to push the "OK" button for the reboot.
I select "OK" and reboot to get back to the Fresh or Upgrade point, and
chose Fresh this time. I did verify that the partitions shown are
hda{1-8}, with all sizes correct but no mount points specified.
I did not go any further.
The system has a 2010S ZCR Adaptec card with 2x36G RAID1 config, and a
36G standalone drive (so three cards). It is a SuperMicro 6023P-8R with
2x2.4G Xeon and 1G RAM.
Since FC3 disk has 2.6.9, I didn't put the i2o_block into the CD's
because the i2o webpage shows that it is already in the 2.6.8. (I do
see that some people have posted on the i2o website that they have had
successful installs.)
Currently the system is up with RH9 still on it. I'd like to get FC3+
installed, but I can't seem to figure out what piece I am missing.
Any one give me some pointers? Are there any alternatives to getting
FC3+ installed? Unfortunately, don't look for immediate trial, as this
system is the only one I have. I don't have a test system with the same
config. Why?!, that'd be too easy! :)

Could you verify if this is true?

This most likely means this partition has not been formatted.