How to fix? Installed Solaris 9 on new (non-Sun) drive - now getting WARNING: ... (dad0) Corrupt label - wrong magic number

Posted on 2006-03-24
Last Modified: 2013-12-21

I recently replaced the original 15GB Seagate drive in my Sun Blade 100 with a retail (non-Sun) Seagate 120GB drive.  I then did a new installation of Solaris 9 on the drive, and everything seems to be ok, i.e., I can boot to Solaris, etc.

The problem that I'm having is that whenever the system boots, I am getting a warning msg:

WARNING: /pci@1f,0 ................ (dad0)
Corrupt label - wrong magic number

I understand that this msg is because the disk is not properly "labeled" for Solaris (again, this was not a Sun drive, which I gather are pre-formatted and pre-labelled).

My question are:  

1) Is there any way to either eliminate the warning msg without having to re-install Solaris?  If so, how (in detail) can I do this?

2) If I have to, to get rid of the warning, I don't mind re-installing Solaris, but I've done Solaris installations a lot of times.  All of the previous times were on Sun drives, and I didn't see anywhere during the installation procedure that I'm suppose to label the drive, so:  If I have to do a re-install to eliminate the warning, what do I have to do differently during the installation?

In researching this, I found some information that indicates that the problem may be because the Solaris installation configured some slices/partitions to start in cylinder 0, so I have tried to boot from cdrom into single-user mode, and run format->partition->label, but I still get the warning.  

I've also tried format->partition, and adjusted the swap partition to start at cylinder 1 instead of cylinder 0, then done "label", but I still get the warning when I reboot.

Here's the current "prtvtoc /dev/rdsk/c0t0d0s0":

bash-2.05# prtvtoc /dev/rdsk/c0t0d0s0
* /dev/rdsk/c0t0d0s0 (volume "abc") partition map
* Dimensions:
*     512 bytes/sector
*     255 sectors/track
*      16 tracks/cylinder
*    4080 sectors/cylinder
*   57461 cylinders
*   57459 accessible cylinders
* Flags:
*   1: unmountable
*  10: read-only
* Unallocated space:
*       First     Sector    Last
*       Sector     Count    Sector
*           0      4080      4079
*   234428640      4080 234432719
*                          First     Sector    Last
* Partition  Tag  Flags    Sector     Count    Sector  Mount Directory
       0      2    00    8192640 205754400 213947039   /
       1      3    01       4080   8188560   8192639
       2      5    00          0 234432720 234432719
       7      8    00  213947040  20481600 234428639   /export/home

And, here's the current format->partition->print:

partition> print
Volume:  abc
Current partition table (original):
Total disk cylinders available: 57459 + 2 (reserved cylinders)

Part      Tag    Flag     Cylinders         Size            Blocks
  0       root    wm    2008 - 52437       98.11GB    (50430/0/0) 205754400
  1       swap    wu       1 -  2007        3.90GB    (2007/0/0)    8188560
  2     backup    wm       0 - 57458      111.79GB    (57459/0/0) 234432720
  3 unassigned    wm       0                0         (0/0/0)             0
  4 unassigned    wm       0                0         (0/0/0)             0
  5 unassigned    wm       0                0         (0/0/0)             0
  6 unassigned    wm       0                0         (0/0/0)             0
  7       home    wm   52438 - 57457        9.77GB    (5020/0/0)   20481600

Finally, here's the current /format.dat file:

bash-2.05# cat format.dat
# New disk/partition type  saved on Fri Mar 24 03:06:28 2006
disk_type = "ST3120814A" \
         : ctlr = ata : ncyl = 57459 : acyl = 2 : pcyl = 57461 \
         : nhead = 16 : nsect = 255 : rpm = 5400

partition = "original" \
         : disk = "ST3120814A" : ctlr = ata \
         : 0 =  2008, 205754400 : 1 =  0, 8192640 : 2 =  backup, \
         wm, 0, 234432720 : 7 =  home, wm, 52438, 20481600

I hope that someone here can help me with this.  I know that this is kind of dumb (a couple of people have suggested I just ignore the warning), but this is really bugging me, and I've spent a couple of days already on this :(!!

Thanks in advance,
Question by:jimcpl
    LVL 1

    Author Comment


    I did some further testing...

    I installed Solaris 9 9/05 onto the 120GB drive.  Then, when I boot Solaris 9 9/05 off of the hard drive OR off of the 9 9/05 CDROM, I get the "corrupted label" warning.

    If I boot a Solaris 10 1/06 CDROM, I *DON'T* get the "corrupt label" warning.

    If I boot a Solaris 9 12/03 CDROM, I *DO* get the "corrupt label" warning.

    If I go by the Solaris 10 test, the hard drive IS properly labelled, but if I go by either Solaris 9 9/05 or 12/03, the hard drive gives the "corrupt label" warning.

    In all cases, when I go into format->partition-print, the partitions/slices look all right.

    Any guesses as to what might be going on?

    LVL 10

    Expert Comment

    Could be for several reasons including the /etc/format.dat file in Solaris 10 is more up to date and the sd device driver in Solaris 10 1/06 is more intelligent/flexible then the sd drivers in Solaris 9 12/03.

    Just out of curiousity, are you trying Solaris 9 12/03 for a specific reason ?  If you can, go straight to Solaris 10 1/06.
    LVL 6

    Expert Comment

    You can label the disk without it re-formatting it.  Just go into "format" and select the drive and label it.
    LVL 1

    Author Comment


    Thanks for the suggestions.  As I think I mentioned earlier, I have tried format many times, but still was getting the warning at boot.

    At this point in time, I believe that the problem is that an earlier Solaris 10 installation had done something or written something to the drive that prevented the Solaris 9 format command from properly writing a label, or from writing a proper (to Solaris 9) label.  

    I removed the drive from the SB100, and put it into a PC, and wiped it clean using Seagate DiscWizard, and it's ok now.

    FYI, since I've come up with a resolution, I am going to request that this question be closed.


    My actual goal when all of this started was to go to Solaris 9 9/05.  I just mentioned about booting to the Solaris 9 12/03 CD because I had used that to test if it was also having the warning msg.

    LVL 6

    Expert Comment

    You can also post to the "Misc" area to ask that this question be closed and your points refunded.

    Accepted Solution

    Closed, 300 points refunded.
    The Experts Exchange
    Community Support Moderator of all Ages

    Featured Post

    What Is Threat Intelligence?

    Threat intelligence is often discussed, but rarely understood. Starting with a precise definition, along with clear business goals, is essential.

    Join & Write a Comment

    I have been running these systems for a few years now and I am just very happy with them.   I just wanted to share the manual that I have created for upgrades and other things.  Oooh yes! FreeBSD makes me happy (as a server), no maintenance and I al…
    I promised to write further about my project, and here I am.  First, I needed to setup the Primary Server.  You can read how in this article: Setup FreeBSD Server with full HDD encryption (…
    Learn several ways to interact with files and get file information from the bash shell. ls lists the contents of a directory: Using the -a flag displays hidden files: Using the -l flag formats the output in a long list: The file command gives us mor…
    Learn how to get help with Linux/Unix bash shell commands. Use help to read help documents for built in bash shell commands.: Use man to interface with the online reference manuals for shell commands.: Use man to search man pages for unknown command…

    746 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

    Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

    Join & Ask a Question

    Need Help in Real-Time?

    Connect with top rated Experts

    15 Experts available now in Live!

    Get 1:1 Help Now