[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: grub-0.91 vs. -0.5.96.1
From: |
oz |
Subject: |
Re: grub-0.91 vs. -0.5.96.1 |
Date: |
Wed, 24 Apr 2002 19:09:02 GMT |
Thanks a lot for your useful hints, Jochen. Unfortunately I cannot test
your commands since the server is in production now. As I wrote before,
the raid-5-array works fine with grub-0.5.96.1.
The grub-0.91 does a good job now booting a software-raid-1
root-filesystem - think I will never take another loader then grub on our
Linux-boxes.
Concerning your question there is no link for /boot/grub/stage1. There also
is no link "boot -> ." I usually have in my separate boot-partitions. It
shouldn't be required here since grub-0.5.96.1 also works without it in
this special case. Maybe I should mention, the boot-partition is also a
raid-5-array.
Schöne Grüße
Oliver
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ursprüngliche Nachricht <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Am 22/04/02, 14:37:35, schrieb Jochen Hoenicke
<address@hidden> zum Thema Re: grub-0.91 vs.
-0.5.96.1:
> On Saturday, 6. April 2002 18:56, address@hidden wrote:
> > FYI:
> >
> > Since grub-0.5.96.1 came out, it boots successfully my kernel from
> > a RAID5-SCSI-Array with reiserfs 3.x.0j
> >
> > Now I setup a new server with identical hardware but reiser
> > 3.x.1a-2 and wanted to give the actual grub-0.91 a try. It compiled
> > also well and I can start grub on a floppy. The problem is:
> There're only two small bug fixes to reiserfs code between
> grub-0.5.96.1 and grub-0.91.
> > Doing "find /boot/grub/stage1" after setting "root (hd0,0)" results
> > in something like "file not found".
> Does "geometry (hd0)" detect the reiserfs partition correctly? If
> yes, type "cat (hd0,0)/" and then press <tab> and check whether it
> can display the directories. Try also to cat small files or follow
> symlinks. Is there a symlink in /boot/grub/stage1?
> Jochen
> --
> Jochen Hoenicke, University of Oldenburg, 26111 Oldenburg, Germany
> Email: address@hidden Tel: +49 441 798 3124