Install alongside option displays incorrect device designations

Bug #657397 reported by Erick Brunzell on 2010-10-09
16
This bug affects 3 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
ubiquity (Ubuntu)
Medium
Canonical Foundations Team
Natty
Medium
Canonical Foundations Team
Oneiric
Medium
Canonical Foundations Team

Bug Description

Binary package hint: ubiquity

While iso-testing the Maverick final I noticed that after choosing the auto-resize option the gui that allows you to "resize" using the "slider" displays incorrect device info.

First of all here's what I started with:

lance@lance-desktop:~$ sudo parted /dev/sdb print
[sudo] password for lance:
Model: ATA WDC WD800JB-00JJ (scsi)
Disk /dev/sdb: 80.0GB
Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
Partition Table: msdos

Number Start End Size Type File system Flags
 1 1049kB 11.5GB 11.5GB primary ext4 boot
 2 11.5GB 23.0GB 11.5GB primary ext4
 3 23.0GB 56.1GB 33.1GB primary ext4
 4 56.1GB 80.0GB 24.0GB extended
 5 56.1GB 77.7GB 21.7GB logical ext4
 6 77.7GB 80.0GB 2297MB logical linux-swap(v1)

That is three 10.10's, the one on sdb1 has a separate /home on sdb5, the other two on sdb2 and sdb3 have no separate /home. They all share the same swap.

During installation the gui showed that it was going to resize sdb3 to 16.8GB and create a ne16.3GB sdb4. Of course that would not be possible since I have three primary partitions and an extended, regardless this is what it really did:

ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo parted /dev/sdb print
Model: ATA WDC WD800JB-00JJ (scsi)
Disk /dev/sdb: 80.0GB
Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
Partition Table: msdos

Number Start End Size Type File system Flags
 1 1049kB 11.5GB 11.5GB primary ext4 boot
 2 11.5GB 23.0GB 11.5GB primary ext4
 3 23.0GB 39.8GB 16.8GB primary ext4
 4 39.8GB 80.0GB 40.3GB extended
 7 39.8GB 55.3GB 15.6GB logical ext4
 8 55.3GB 56.1GB 730MB logical linux-swap(v1)
 5 56.1GB 77.7GB 21.7GB logical ext4
 6 77.7GB 80.0GB 2297MB logical linux-swap(v1)

As you can see it actually resized everything quite well. Darn impressive I must say!

So it's simply a matter of the gui showing improper info and I'd consider that very low priority.

At any rate I wanted apport to collect info for the devs, but I'll add more comments later after I get into a more comfortable modified Ubuntu that suits my vision ;^)

Overall I'm very impressed with the new ubiquity.

ProblemType: Bug
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 10.10
Package: ubiquity 2.4.8
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.35-22.33-generic 2.6.35.4
Uname: Linux 2.6.35-22-generic i686
Architecture: i386
Date: Sat Oct 9 11:58:05 2010
LiveMediaBuild: Ubuntu 10.10 "Maverick Meerkat" - Release i386 (20101007)
ProcEnviron:
 LANG=en_US.UTF-8
 SHELL=/bin/bash
SourcePackage: ubiquity

Erick Brunzell (lbsolost) wrote :
summary: - Install alongside option offers incorrect device desigantions
+ Install alongside option displays incorrect device designations
tags: added: iso-testing
Erick Brunzell (lbsolost) wrote :

Oops, being blind as a bat results in mistakes, this:

"During installation the gui showed that it was going to resize sdb3 to 16.8GB and create a ne16.3GB sdb4."

Should have said:

"During installation the gui showed that it was going to resize sdb3 to 16.8GB and create a new 16.3GB sdb4."

I did describe two other scenarios where this popped up at bug 655950:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubiquity/+bug/655950/comments/1

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubiquity/+bug/655950/comments/2

In the second ignore the 4 NTFS stuff!

That proved to be wrong, the only real difference between the old and new ubiquity there is that the new ubiquity lacks the warning "No operating system is present" , but that's unrelated.

I have been able to reproduce this enough at this point to be certain that this is NOT serious for two reasons:

#1: If someone is really paying attention they can either choose the advanced option or quit the install.

#2: If they're not paying attention the install seems to do the right thing anyway so they'll never know.

So, I think it's largely "cosmetic". Something we should fix in Natty but definitely not worth delaying the release of Maverick.

Sorry to take so long :^(

I can't imagine mentioning this in the Release Notes doing much good but I'll leave that up to you.

Erick Brunzell (lbsolost) wrote :

I tried to attach some info using apport-collect from a completed Maverick installation that I performed on 11-21 but it appears that may not have completed successfully. Regardless I wanted to get some basic info down here before I have to wipe this install performing Natty iso-testing in a few days.

I did this installation to provide some basic installer info on the forums:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=10145206&postcount=15

That includes some screenshots of the two actual instances of the installer showing incorrect designations or options.

I began with this partition arrangement:

ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo parted /dev/sdb print
Model: ATA WDC WD800JB-00JJ (scsi)
Disk /dev/sdb: 80.0GB
Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
Partition Table: msdos

Number Start End Size Type File system Flags
 1 32.3kB 1119MB 1119MB primary ntfs
 2 1119MB 74.5GB 73.4GB primary ntfs
 3 74.5GB 80.0GB 5519MB primary ntfs

The first problem is a true duplicate of the behavior I noticed when I originally reported this bug. You'll see that the "slider GUI" shows it's going to resize /dev/sdb2 (ntfs) and create a new /dev/sdb3 (ext4). This is of course wrong because I already have an sdb3.

What it actually did was quite different:

ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo parted /dev/sdb print
Model: ATA WDC WD800JB-00JJ (scsi)
Disk /dev/sdb: 80.0GB
Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
Partition Table: msdos

Number Start End Size Type File system Flags
 1 32.3kB 1119MB 1119MB primary ntfs
 2 1119MB 24.5GB 23.4GB primary ntfs
 4 24.5GB 74.5GB 50.0GB extended
 5 24.5GB 72.4GB 47.9GB logical ext4
 6 72.4GB 74.5GB 2092MB logical linux-swap(v1)
 3 74.5GB 80.0GB 5519MB primary ntfs

Certainly an acceptable outcome in that regard. It's simply a matter of the GUI displaying the improper device info in that case.

I did however notice another instance of either incorrect info or incorrect behavior. If you look at the second screenshot in that forum post you'll see that after selecting "Use entire partition" the GUI shows that it's going to use all of /dev/sdb as ext4, but it still shows two smaller partitions hidden. It's important to note here that I did NOT complete the installation upon seeing that. I just clicked on back.

Regardless I think that's a separate issue from what I'd originally reported here so I intend to try another installation scenario, basically duplicating the latter behavior, and letting the installation complete. I should then be able to tell what the installer actually does after choosing "Use entire partition" and report that separately.

I will of course be following up in Natty.

Erick Brunzell (lbsolost) wrote :

I added apport-collect info to 682429 using the Natty Alpha1 iso-testing i386 Live CD. Hopefully you can parse that info to verify what I'm saying here. I began with this partitioning arrangement:

Model: ATA WDC WD800JB-00JJ (scsi)
Disk /dev/sdb: 80.0GB
Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
Partition Table: msdos

Number Start End Size Type File system Flags
 1 1049kB 8484MB 8483MB primary ext4 boot
 2 8484MB 77.7GB 69.3GB primary ext4
 3 77.7GB 80.0GB 2289MB primary linux-swap(v1)

The "slider" graphic displayed that it was going to split sdb2 and create a new sdb3 which clearly can't be correct because I already had am sd3.

I did not however proceed with the resize, I clicked on "Use entire partition" and you can read the rest of that story at 682429 since it's the more serious of the two problems.

This is only cosmetic.

Erick Brunzell (lbsolost) wrote :

While this is largely cosmetic I wanted to update this:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubiquity/+bug/652852/comments/27

It's all loosely related.

Erick Brunzell (lbsolost) wrote :

Upon first look I'm very impressed with the changes to ubiquity in Natty Alpha 3, and this is very, very minor, but using the "install alongside" option I noticed that the resize graphic showed that it was going to resize /dev/sdb3 and create /dev/sdb4. That could be possible because I began with:

sdb1 = primary/Hardy root
sdb3 = primary/Lucid root
sdb2 = extended
sdb5 = logical/swap

What the installer/parted actually did was shrink sdb3, expand sdb2, and create sdb6:

Model: ATA WDC WD800JB-00JJ (scsi)
Disk /dev/sdb: 80.0GB
Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
Partition Table: msdos

Number Start End Size Type File system Flags
 1 32.3kB 38.4GB 38.4GB primary ext3 boot
 3 38.4GB 57.8GB 19.5GB primary ext3
 2 57.8GB 80.0GB 22.2GB extended
 6 57.8GB 74.6GB 16.8GB logical ext4
 7 74.6GB 76.7GB 2136MB logical linux-swap(v1)
 5 76.7GB 80.0GB 3307MB logical linux-swap(v1)

That's certainly OK. I'm fully aware this is nit-picking and IMO a won't fix would suit me just fine here because (a) I think the group of users that are most likely to use this option are also very unlikely to pay attention to device designations and (b) the option to use the advanced partitioning tool is prominently displayed so those who are paying attention and want more control can easily click on it and do whatever they please.

I would however appreciate Evan Dandrea's opinion on this. Great work so far, so thank you, and apologies in advance for the nit-picking ;^/

I'm attaching a screenshot so you can see the actual display.

Jean-Baptiste Lallement (jibel) wrote :

I can confirm this with ubiquity 2.6.5

To reproduce in a VM
1. Install Natty once using full device space
2. Reboot
3. Install it a second time and choose 'install alongside'

The partition manager displays 2 devices sda1 and sda2
But a dump of the partition table shows that sda2 is an extended partition.
After proceeding, the dump shows that the partition manager actually resized sda1 and created sda6 and sda7.

Setting to medium because it is sensible and misleading information.

Changed in ubiquity (Ubuntu):
importance: Undecided → Medium
status: New → Triaged
assignee: nobody → Canonical Foundations Team (canonical-foundations)
Evan (ev) wrote :

We definitely need to fix this, but it's not sufficiently release critical to warrant a change to Natty. I'll make sure it gets in early in O.

Changed in ubiquity (Ubuntu Natty):
status: Triaged → Won't Fix
Changed in ubiquity (Ubuntu):
milestone: none → oneiric-alpha-1
Kate Stewart (kate.stewart) wrote :

update milestone so it stays on the radar.

Changed in ubiquity (Ubuntu Oneiric):
milestone: oneiric-alpha-1 → none
milestone: none → oneiric-alpha-3
Erick Brunzell (lbsolost) wrote :

Just following up while testing the Oneiric Alpha2 iso-testing image. I began with:

Disk /dev/sdb: 80.0GB
Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
Partition Table: msdos

Number Start End Size Type File system Flags
 1 1049kB 66.5GB 66.5GB primary ext4
 2 66.5GB 80.0GB 13.5GB extended
 6 66.5GB 75.8GB 9234MB logical ext4
 7 75.8GB 77.9GB 2132MB logical linux-swap(v1)
 5 77.9GB 80.0GB 2136MB logical linux-swap(v1)

Then the installer said it was going to resize sdb1 and create sdb2, what it actually did was resize sdb1 and create sdb8 (and sdb9):

Disk /dev/sdb: 80.0GB
Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
Partition Table: msdos

Number Start End Size Type File system Flags
 1 1049kB 33.8GB 33.8GB primary ext4
 2 33.8GB 80.0GB 46.2GB extended
 8 33.8GB 64.4GB 30.6GB logical ext4
 9 64.4GB 66.5GB 2136MB logical linux-swap(v1)
 6 66.5GB 75.8GB 9234MB logical ext4
 7 75.8GB 77.9GB 2132MB logical linux-swap(v1)
 5 77.9GB 80.0GB 2136MB logical linux-swap(v1)

Hardly a big deal for the previously stated reasons but wanted to follow up all the same.

tags: added: ubiquity-2.4.8
Changed in ubiquity (Ubuntu Oneiric):
milestone: oneiric-alpha-3 → ubuntu-11.10-beta-1
Martin Pitt (pitti) on 2011-08-31
Changed in ubiquity (Ubuntu):
milestone: ubuntu-11.10-beta-1 → ubuntu-11.10-beta-2
Dave Walker (davewalker) on 2011-09-23
Changed in ubiquity (Ubuntu):
milestone: ubuntu-11.10-beta-2 → ubuntu-11.10
Erick Brunzell (lbsolost) wrote :

@ Dave Walker,

I think we'd be foolish to rip into ubiquity this late in Oneiric for such a relatively minor bug. Note what I said in post #2:

#1: If someone is really paying attention they can either choose the advanced option or quit the install.

#2: If they're not paying attention the install seems to do the right thing anyway so they'll never know.

I'd much prefer this be looked at again in P ;^)

IMHO the most serious bug in ubiquity is bug 766265, and even with that, I'd hate to see ubiquity torn into this late in the process.

I've tested extensively, beyond the prescribed iso-testing criteria, with Oneiric Beta 2 and I've found no conditions under which we'd cause a loss of data as we did with bug 655950. I think we must never risk such a thing again, unless it's very early in the Alpha stage of development when only experienced testers should be installing recklessly.

Many thanks, Lance.

Rolf Leggewie (r0lf) wrote :

oneiric has seen the end of its life and is no longer receiving any updates. Marking the oneiric task for this ticket as "Won't Fix".

Changed in ubiquity (Ubuntu Oneiric):
status: Triaged → Won't Fix
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers