Bug#475525: Failure to start after installation using grub - Debian

This is a discussion on Bug#475525: Failure to start after installation using grub - Debian ; Package: installation-reports Boot method: CD Image version: http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/da...86-netinst.iso Date: Apr 11 2008 01:00 UTC Machine: Pc clon Processor: PIV 2.4 ghz Memory: 1 gb Partitions: /dev/sda1 jfs mounted as / /dev/sda3 xfs mouned as /home /dev/sda5 swap /dev/sda6 xfs mounted ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Bug#475525: Failure to start after installation using grub

  1. Bug#475525: Failure to start after installation using grub

    Package: installation-reports

    Boot method: CD
    Image version: http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/da...86-netinst.iso
    Date: Apr 11 2008 01:00 UTC

    Machine: Pc clon
    Processor: PIV 2.4 ghz
    Memory: 1 gb
    Partitions:

    /dev/sda1 jfs mounted as /
    /dev/sda3 xfs mouned as /home
    /dev/sda5 swap
    /dev/sda6 xfs mounted as /data

    Output of lspci -nn and lspci -vnn: ( I'll send it to you later )

    I've two disk drives :

    - 80 gb serial ata ( initially detected as /dev/sda and after
    installation /dev/sdb )
    - 40 gb ata-133 ( initially detected as /dev/hdc and after
    installation /dev/sda )

    Base System Installation Checklist: [O]

    Initial boot: [O]
    Detect network card: [O]
    Configure network: [O]
    Detect CD: [O]
    Load installer modules: [O]
    Detect hard drives: [O]
    Partition hard drives: [O]
    Install base system: [O]
    Clock/timezone setup: [O]
    User/password setup: [O]
    Install tasks: [O]
    Install boot loader: [O]
    Overall install: [O]

    Comments/Problems:

    The problem is that after rebootig, grub boots ok, but then when it
    tries to start the system, it can't find the partition /dev/sda1 ( as
    it was detected at installation time ).
    What I found out was that the disk was now detected as /dev/sdb
    instead of /dev/sda.
    So I changed the parameter in grub ( "E" command ) and changed
    /dev/sda1 by /dev/sdb1.
    After that, it loads the kernel but the system can't find the other
    partitions ( /dev/sda3 /dev/sda5 - swap - /dev/sda6 ).
    At that moment, it is proposed to give root password for entering in
    maintenance mode, so I did it.
    Then I changed the contents of the /dev/fstab to match the new way the
    disk is detected ( /dev/sdb instead of /dev/sda ).
    I alsa have to change the configuration file of the resume to point to
    the "new" swap partition.
    After that the system works great.

    Regards.
    Facundo.
    Buenos Aires - Argentina



    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  2. Bug#475525: Failure to start after installation using grub

    On Friday 11 April 2008, Facundo Ariel Perez wrote:
    > I've two disk drives :
    > - 80 gb serial ata ( initially detected as /dev/sda and after
    > installation /dev/sdb )
    > - 40 gb ata-133 ( initially detected as /dev/hdc and after
    > installation /dev/sda )
    >
    > Comments/Problems:
    >
    > The problem is that after rebootig, grub boots ok, but then when it
    > tries to start the system, it can't find the partition /dev/sda1 ( as
    > it was detected at installation time ).
    > What I found out was that the disk was now detected as /dev/sdb
    > instead of /dev/sda.


    This is a known issue described in the errata for both the stable release
    and the Lenny 1 release [1]. You found the correct way to deal with it,
    although you can potentially find yourself in the same situation again if
    the "wrong" driver should be loaded first.

    However, it seems that two different modules are claiming to support your
    IDE drive, which AFAIK should not happen, so the output of 'lspci -nn'
    would be very welcome.

    Cheers,
    FJP

    [1] http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/errata



    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  3. Re: Bug#475525: Both sis5513 and pata_sis claim 1039:5513 (was: reboot failure)

    reassign 475525 linux-2.6 2.6.22-6
    retitle 475525 Both sis5513 and pata_sis claim 1039:5513
    thanks

    On Saturday 12 April 2008, Facundo Ariel PĂ©rez wrote:
    > Here they go ...


    Thanks. This shows that indeed two modules are currently competing for the
    same chipset, which is not desirable. Therefore reassigning to the kernel
    team.

    $ grep 1039.*5513 /lib/modules/2.6.24-1-amd64/modules.pcimap
    pata_sis 0x00001039 0x00005513 ...
    sis5513 0x00001039 0x00005513 ...

    (2.6.22-3 gives the same result)

    waldi, maks: should we maybe do another inventory for such cases?
    (please CC d-boot on reply as I'm not subscribed to d-kernel ATM)

    Cheers,
    FJP

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQBIBo2zgm/Kwh6ICoQRAsCQAKCHG2HC+N5vXg/dIOxwhbjjWLfrigCgtPK4
    jsCKMdhpINqT1y7cfL2TdVY=
    =N3Q+
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  4. Bug#475525: Both sis5513 and pata_sis claim 1039:5513 (was: reboot failure)

    On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 01:37:23AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
    > reassign 475525 linux-2.6 2.6.22-6
    > retitle 475525 Both sis5513 and pata_sis claim 1039:5513
    > thanks
    >
    > On Saturday 12 April 2008, Facundo Ariel Pérez wrote:
    > > Here they go ...

    >
    > Thanks. This shows that indeed two modules are currently competing for the
    > same chipset, which is not desirable. Therefore reassigning to the kernel
    > team.
    >
    > $ grep 1039.*5513 /lib/modules/2.6.24-1-amd64/modules.pcimap
    > pata_sis 0x00001039 0x00005513 ...
    > sis5513 0x00001039 0x00005513 ...
    >
    > (2.6.22-3 gives the same result)
    >
    > waldi, maks: should we maybe do another inventory for such cases?
    > (please CC d-boot on reply as I'm not subscribed to d-kernel ATM)


    yep the pata_sis case is known.

    it is an unfortunate example of why we shouldn't use oldstyle device
    names in fstab. it wasn't desactivated as currently pata_sis seems
    to be quicker in grabbing the device thus many people have
    /dev/sdaX as their root and bouncing around seemed stupid.
    also the hope was put on the pata transition and stable dev usage.
    as none of those currently happend it seems time to reconsider
    (having testing user bite the sour switch again)

    --
    maks

    ps fjp mutt seemed strangely not to put you on cc,
    please cc me on any reply (subscribed or not).

  5. Bug#475525: Both sis5513 and pata_sis claim 1039:5513 (was: reboot failure)

    On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 01:37:23AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
    > reassign 475525 linux-2.6 2.6.22-6
    > retitle 475525 Both sis5513 and pata_sis claim 1039:5513
    > thanks
    >
    > On Saturday 12 April 2008, Facundo Ariel Pérez wrote:
    > > Here they go ...

    >
    > Thanks. This shows that indeed two modules are currently competing for the
    > same chipset, which is not desirable. Therefore reassigning to the kernel
    > team.
    >
    > $ grep 1039.*5513 /lib/modules/2.6.24-1-amd64/modules.pcimap
    > pata_sis 0x00001039 0x00005513 ...
    > sis5513 0x00001039 0x00005513 ...
    >
    > (2.6.22-3 gives the same result)
    >
    > waldi, maks: should we maybe do another inventory for such cases?
    > (please CC d-boot on reply as I'm not subscribed to d-kernel ATM)


    yep the pata_sis case is known.

    it is an unfortunate example of why we shouldn't use oldstyle device
    names in fstab. it wasn't desactivated as currently pata_sis seems
    to be quicker in grabbing the device thus many people have
    /dev/sdaX as their root and bouncing around seemed stupid.
    also the hope was put on the pata transition and stable dev usage.
    as none of those currently happend it seems time to reconsider
    (having testing user bite the sour switch again)

    --
    maks

    ps fjp mutt seemed strangely not to put you on cc,
    please cc me on any reply (subscribed or not).

  6. Bug#475525: marked as done (Both sis5513 and pata_sis claim 1039:5513)


    Your message dated Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:08:45 +0000
    with message-id
    and subject line Bug#475525: fixed in linux-2.6 2.6.25-1
    has caused the Debian Bug report #475525,
    regarding Both sis5513 and pata_sis claim 1039:5513
    to be marked as done.

    This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
    If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
    Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

    (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
    message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
    misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
    immediately.)


    --
    475525: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=475525
    Debian Bug Tracking System
    Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems


+ Reply to Thread