Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Bill Longman <bill.longman@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Disk /dev/dm-0 doesn't contain a valid partition table
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 16:09:46
Message-Id: 4C583F10.8000406@gmail.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-user] Disk /dev/dm-0 doesn't contain a valid partition table by Valmor de Almeida
1 On 08/03/2010 09:20 AM, Valmor de Almeida wrote:
2 >
3 > Hello,
4 >
5 > After a recent sync and new kernel built, I get these messages from
6 > fdisk -l that did not use to get before. Searching the web, it appears
7 > that fdisk is listing my LVM partitions. Why is it doing now? It has
8 > never done it before.
9 >
10 > Thanks,
11 >
12 > --
13 > Valmor
14 >
15 >
16 > fdisk -l
17 >
18 > Disk /dev/dm-0: 26.8 GB, 26843545600 bytes
19 > 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 3263 cylinders
20 > Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
21 > Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
22 > I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
23 > Disk identifier: 0x00000000
24 >
25 > Disk /dev/dm-0 doesn't contain a valid partition table
26 >
27 > Disk /dev/dm-1: 10.7 GB, 10737418240 bytes
28 > 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 1305 cylinders
29 > Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
30 > Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
31 > I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
32 > Disk identifier: 0x00000000
33 >
34 > Disk /dev/dm-1 doesn't contain a valid partition table
35 >
36 > Disk /dev/dm-2: 5368 MB, 5368709120 bytes
37 > 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 652 cylinders
38 > Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
39 > Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
40 > I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
41 > Disk identifier: 0x00000000
42 >
43 > Disk /dev/dm-2 doesn't contain a valid partition table
44 >
45 > Disk /dev/dm-3: 2147 MB, 2147483648 bytes
46 > 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 261 cylinders
47 > Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
48 > Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
49 > I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
50 > Disk identifier: 0x00000000
51 >
52 > Disk /dev/dm-3 doesn't contain a valid partition table
53 >
54 > Disk /dev/dm-4: 53.7 GB, 53687091200 bytes
55 > 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 6527 cylinders
56 > Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
57 > Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
58 > I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
59 > Disk identifier: 0x00000000
60 >
61 > Disk /dev/dm-4 doesn't contain a valid partition table
62 >
63 >
64 > df
65 >
66 > /dev/mapper/vfda-usr 26213596 11144004 15069592 43% /usr
67 > /dev/mapper/vfda-var 10485436 232620 10252816 3% /var
68 > /dev/mapper/vfda-opt 5242716 311388 4931328 6% /opt
69 > /dev/mapper/vfda-tmp 2097084 32852 2064232 2% /tmp
70 > /dev/mapper/vfda-home
71
72 It seems to me you now have BLK_DEV_DM in your kernel.
73
74 I've seen this on many systems with lvm. I always thought it was normal
75 and I just ignored them. But I do have some systems that have lvm that
76 don't show those errors. What partition support do you have in your new
77 kernel?