Reqst: How get Fedora to boot - Redhat

This is a discussion on Reqst: How get Fedora to boot - Redhat ; Have installed Fedora on a Second Hard Drive; BUT it did NOT write to the MBR of the second hard drive; and it's anaconda installation routine refuses to update or write a new MBR. Can someone please tell me which ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 55

Thread: Reqst: How get Fedora to boot

  1. Reqst: How get Fedora to boot

    Have installed Fedora on a Second Hard Drive;
    BUT it did NOT write to the MBR of the second hard drive;
    and it's anaconda installation routine refuses to update or write a new
    MBR.

    Can someone please tell me which Linux utility Fedora is meant to write to
    its MBR with, and how to use it.

    I looked at the "grub" thing & used "grub-install" - - I was hoping it
    would install a bootloader type thing but instead has installed "grub" as
    some kind of limited command line that is only usable if you know what
    names Linux calles things by.

    I just want one of these Linux drives to be able to boot;
    can any Linux user please help.

  2. Re: Reqst: How get Fedora to boot

    On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:58:48 +1100, Daeron wrote:

    > Have installed Fedora on a Second Hard Drive;
    > BUT it did NOT write to the MBR of the second hard drive;
    > and it's anaconda installation routine refuses to update or write a new
    > MBR.
    >
    > Can someone please tell me which Linux utility Fedora is meant to write to
    > its MBR with, and how to use it.
    >
    > I looked at the "grub" thing & used "grub-install" - - I was hoping it
    > would install a bootloader type thing but instead has installed "grub" as
    > some kind of limited command line that is only usable if you know what
    > names Linux calles things by.
    >
    > I just want one of these Linux drives to be able to boot;
    > can any Linux user please help.


    Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but how would a system boot from
    the MBR of a second drive? The system is always going to start at
    the MBR of the first drive (unless your BIOS has an option to do
    otherwise). The bootloader on the first drive should then point
    to the root partition of the OS in question on the second drive.
    No?

    Grub displays a menu of OS choices on my system, where I have
    three OSes on three different drives, and I just have to move
    the cursor up or down and hit Enter for the one I want to boot.



  3. Re: Reqst: How get Fedora to boot

    Up spake Charles Sullivan:
    > Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but how would a system boot from
    > the MBR of a second drive? The system is always going to start at
    > the MBR of the first drive (unless your BIOS has an option to do
    > otherwise). The bootloader on the first drive should then point
    > to the root partition of the OS in question on the second drive.


    You are correct.

    For example, if you

    - install Mandrake on the first disk (/dev/hda1)
    - install FC on the second disk (/dev/hdb1)

    You still need to

    - add /dev/hda1 and /dev/hdb1 to the bootloader menu
    - install the bootloader on, say, the second disk (/dev/hdb)
    - add /dev/hdb to the start of the BIOS boot list

    There is no way for the FC installer to perform the last action; you
    must do it manually.

    --
    -trent
    The light of the eyes is as a comet,
    And Zen's activity is as lightning.
    The sword that kills the man
    Is the sword that saves the man.

  4. Re: Reqst: How get Fedora to boot

    Charles Sullivan wrote:
    > On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:58:48 +1100, Daeron wrote:
    >> Can someone please tell me which Linux utility Fedora is meant to write
    >> to its MBR with, and how to use it.
    >>
    >> I looked at the "grub" thing & used "grub-install" - - I was hoping it
    >> would install a bootloader type thing but instead has installed "grub" as
    >> some kind of limited command line that is only usable if you know what
    >> names Linux calles things by.
    >>
    >> I just want one of these Linux drives to be able to boot;
    >> can any Linux user please help.

    >
    > Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but how would a system boot from
    > the MBR of a second drive? The system is always going to start at
    > the MBR of the first drive (unless your BIOS has an option to do
    > otherwise).


    ** In short ** The First drive's MBR points to it's OS's & any other drives,
    the MBR on the other drives should at least know about the OS on that
    drive. I can not recall any OS installation routine that has ever installed
    itself without ensuring the drive it was on was bootable.

    Also as it happens,
    Yes the BIOS does allow one to boot from the second or any specified MBR;
    However that is only a fallback trouble-shooting tool. But did allow me to
    verify that the Fedora install had left the drive un-bootable.

    > The bootloader on the first drive should then point
    > to the root partition of the OS in question on the second drive.
    > No?


    No.
    Bad Management: That would special treatment for the Linux system; it &
    only it is allowed to write to the primary MBR. Both un-enforcable and:
    Dangerous Practice: That would mean any time some other system such as Mr
    Gates weapons, wrote to the Primary MBR that the Linux system would become
    unbootable.

    > Grub displays a menu of OS choices on my system, where I have
    > three OSes on three different drives, and I just have to move
    > the cursor up or down and hit Enter for the one I want to boot.


    Yes, thanks I just need the MBR on the drive to boot the Linux system;
    no need for it to do anything else.
    From what I've been able to find out, aparantly the Linux BootManager has
    to be able to point the system not only at a certain drive or MS-Dos
    partition, but at a specific file inside a specific MS-Dos partition --
    which is different for each version of the Linux kernel?

    Fedora seems to count drives & partitions from One instead of Zero?
    And calls drives by 'Letter" instead of number?
    If my reading of the docs I've been able to find is correct;
    I believe the Fedora name for the 'kernel' is:
    /dev/hdb1 (wehich is mounted at /boot) and the file is:
    /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.9-1.667

    If this is all correct, can you or someone please tell me how to get it to
    write the required bootmanager to the drives own MBR.

  5. Re: Reqst: How get Fedora to boot

    Trent Buck wrote:
    > Up spake Charles Sullivan:
    >> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but how would a system boot from
    >> the MBR of a second drive? The system is always going to start at
    >> the MBR of the first drive (unless your BIOS has an option to do
    >> otherwise). The bootloader on the first drive should then point
    >> to the root partition of the OS in question on the second drive.

    >
    > You are correct.

    I think he's mistaken and what you've specified below is correct.
    And my Bootmanager already DOES point to the drive with the Linux on it
    (/dev/hdb in Linux talk) & can even point to the /boot partition
    (/dev/hdb1) - -
    Problem is that Linux does *not* boot.

    From what I've found in the GRUB documents the Linux OS requires a special
    Bootmanager to boot, it requires the Bootmanager itself to point to s file
    location within a MS-Dos partition it calls "/boot"
    - - other systems generally just use a boot-strap at the very start of the
    drive or a MS style Dos-partition.
    My problem is that this anaconda installation routine does not allow one to
    "update" the installation drives own MBR unless it is the primary drive on
    the system.

    So can you tell me how do I mannually update the second drives MBR so that
    it can boot the Linux OS that's installed on it?

    > For example, if you
    >
    > - install Mandrake on the first disk (/dev/hda1)
    > - install FC on the second disk (/dev/hdb1)
    >
    > You still need to
    >
    > - add /dev/hda1 and /dev/hdb1 to the bootloader menu
    > - install the bootloader on, say, the second disk (/dev/hdb)
    > - add /dev/hdb to the start of the BIOS boot list
    >
    > There is no way for the FC installer to perform the last action; you
    > must do it manually.
    >



  6. Re: Reqst: How get Fedora to boot

    Up spake Daeron:

    > From what I've found in the GRUB documents the Linux OS requires a special
    > Bootmanager to boot, it requires the Bootmanager itself to point to s file
    > location within a MS-Dos partition it calls "/boot"


    After the BIOS loads and before the kernel loads, the bootloader runs.
    This is generally LILO or GRUB (or isolinux for CDROMs). It has to be
    installed in the MBR *or* at the start of a partition. The Microsoft
    equivalent is the ntldr program, I think.

    The /boot directory typically contains kernel(s) and (where necessary)
    their INITial RamDisks. Actually kernels and initrds can be located
    anywhere on the root partition. The filesystem /boot is on can be
    anything supported by the bootloader or in the initrd (I think).

    When you install the bootloader, it copies the initrds to the MBR and
    remembers the partition and path of the kernels.

    The definitive reference for this stuff is the From Power Up to Bash
    Prompt HOWTO,
    http://tldp.org/HOWTO/From-PowerUp-T...mpt-HOWTO.html

    > So can you tell me how do I mannually update the second drives MBR so that
    > it can boot the Linux OS that's installed on it?


    I use LILO (rather than GRUB). The lilo.conf file looks something like this:

    # Warning: this is based on a working Debian config.
    # FC and MDK may differ slightly.

    # Where is the bootloader installed:
    boot=/dev/hdb

    vga=normal
    lba32
    install=menu
    map=/boot/map
    delay=5
    prompt
    timeout=100
    read-only
    image=/boot/vmlinuz-2.6.6-2-686-smp
    label="Mandrake"
    initrd=/boot/initrd.img-2.6.6-2-686-smp
    root=/dev/hda1
    image=/mnt/hdb1/boot/vmlinuz-2.4.6
    label="Fedora Core 3"
    initrd=/mnt/hdb1/boot/initrd.img-2.4.6
    root=/dev/hdb1

    If FC3 is installed to /dev/hdb1 and Mandrake is bootable, you should be
    able to use something similar to the above in /etc/lilo.conf to install
    the bootloader onto the second disk's MBR.

    (Note: you don't have to install the bootloader from the distro it boots
    into -- e.g. you could install it from Mandrake or the FC rescue CD.)

    --
    -trent
    Nothing is true. Everything is permissible.

  7. Re: Reqst: How get Fedora to boot

    Up spake Daeron:
    > Bad Management: That would special treatment for the Linux system; it &
    > only it is allowed to write to the primary MBR. Both un-enforcable and:
    >
    > Dangerous Practice: That would mean any time some other system such as Mr
    > Gates weapons, wrote to the Primary MBR that the Linux system would become
    > unbootable.


    FWIW I have LILO installed on /dev/hde; it boots distros on /dev/hd[ae][12].

    I have successfully installed NT 5.0 and NT 5.1 on /dev/hdb after
    physically removing hde (NT couldn't differentiate between the first and
    third IDE buses). IIRC NT 5.x will clobber the MBR of /dev/hda.

    --
    -trent
    Live phase 1 <--> RJ45 pin 3 GND <--> RJ45 pin 8
    Live phase 2 <--> RJ45 pin 6 Is this suitable?
    Live phase 3 <--> RJ45 pin 2 Or should we kill phones too?
    Neutral <--> RJ45 pin 1 -- Arvid

  8. Re: Reqst: How get Fedora to boot

    On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 03:44:02 +1100, Daeron wrote:

    > Charles Sullivan wrote:
    >> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:58:48 +1100, Daeron wrote:
    >>> Can someone please tell me which Linux utility Fedora is meant to write
    >>> to its MBR with, and how to use it.
    >>>
    >>> I looked at the "grub" thing & used "grub-install" - - I was hoping it
    >>> would install a bootloader type thing but instead has installed "grub" as
    >>> some kind of limited command line that is only usable if you know what
    >>> names Linux calles things by.
    >>>
    >>> I just want one of these Linux drives to be able to boot;
    >>> can any Linux user please help.

    >>
    >> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but how would a system boot from
    >> the MBR of a second drive? The system is always going to start at
    >> the MBR of the first drive (unless your BIOS has an option to do
    >> otherwise).

    >
    > ** In short ** The First drive's MBR points to it's OS's & any other drives,
    > the MBR on /the other drives should at least know about the OS on that
    > drive. I can not recall any OS installation routine that has ever
    > installed itself without ensuring the drive it was on was bootable.


    If you're talking about Windows, it _insists_ on being the first
    drive for its installation.

    > Also as it happens,
    > Yes the BIOS does allow one to boot from the second or any specified MBR;
    > However that is only a fallback trouble-shooting tool. But did allow me to
    > verify that the Fedora install had left the drive un-bootable.
    >
    >> The bootloader on the first drive should then point
    >> to the root partition of the OS in question on the second drive.
    >> No?

    >
    > No.
    > Bad Management: That would special treatment for the Linux system; it &
    > only it is allowed to write to the primary MBR. Both un-enforcable and:
    > Dangerous Practice: That would mean any time some other system such as Mr
    > Gates weapons, wrote to the Primary MBR that the Linux system would become
    > unbootable.


    Unless you're using some boot manager software on a primary
    partition, how else would you do it?

    >> Grub displays a menu of OS choices on my system, where I have three
    >> OSes on three different drives, and I just have to move the cursor up
    >> or down and hit Enter for the one I want to boot.

    >
    > Yes, thanks I just need the MBR on the drive to boot the Linux system;
    > no need for it to do anything else.
    > From what I've been able to find out, aparantly the Linux BootManager
    > has
    > to be able to point the system not only at a certain drive or MS-Dos
    > partition, but at a specific file inside a specific MS-Dos partition --
    > which is different for each version of the Linux kernel?
    >
    > Fedora seems to count drives & partitions from One instead of Zero? And
    > calls drives by 'Letter" instead of number? If my reading of the docs
    > I've been able to find is correct; I believe the Fedora name for the
    > 'kernel' is: /dev/hdb1 (wehich is mounted at /boot) and the file is:
    > /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.9-1.667
    >
    > If this is all correct, can you or someone please tell me how to get it
    > to
    > write the required bootmanager to the drives own MBR.


    As far as Linux is concerned, IDE drives are labeled /dev/hda,
    /dev/hdb, etc., and the partitions are identified with a number
    1 through N, e.g., /dev/hda1.

    Grub uses its own zero-base terminology, with (hd0) corresponding
    to /dev/hda, (hd0,0) corresponding to /dev/hda1, etc.

    When installing a new OS I generally rejumper the drive as
    the first drive for the duration of the installation, then
    restore it to its original configuration and tweak
    /etc/fstab appropriately. That way it gets it's own MBR (which
    isn't used for anything so long as it remains a second or
    subsequent drive).

    BTW, the last time I installed Linux on a second drive, I noticed
    that grub couldn't find it if the root was identified by a LABEL.
    I had to change it to the actual partition reference, e.g.,
    change the 'kernel' line in grub.conf from:
    kernel /boot/vmlinuz-x.x.x ro root=LABEL=/2
    to
    kernel /boot/vmlinuz-x.x.x ro root=/dev/hdb7





  9. Re: How get Fedora to boot

    Trent Buck wrote:
    > Up spake Daeron:
    >
    >> From what I've found in the GRUB documents the Linux OS requires a
    >> special Bootmanager to boot, it requires the Bootmanager itself to point
    >> to s file location within a MS-Dos partition it calls "/boot"

    >
    > . . .
    > When you install the bootloader, it copies the initrds to the MBR and
    > remembers the partition and path of the kernels.
    >
    > The definitive reference for this stuff is the From Power Up to Bash
    > Prompt HOWTO,
    > http://tldp.org/HOWTO/From-PowerUp-T...mpt-HOWTO.html
    >
    >> So can you tell me how do I mannually update the second drives MBR so
    >> that it can boot the Linux OS that's installed on it?

    >
    > I use LILO (rather than GRUB).
    > The lilo.conf file looks something like this:
    >
    > # Warning: this is based on a working Debian config.
    > # FC and MDK may differ slightly.
    >
    > # Where is the bootloader installed:
    > boot=/dev/hdb
    >
    > vga=normal
    > lba32
    > install=menu
    > map=/boot/map
    > delay=5
    > prompt
    > timeout=100
    > read-only
    > image=/boot/vmlinuz-2.6.6-2-686-smp
    > label="Mandrake"
    > initrd=/boot/initrd.img-2.6.6-2-686-smp
    > root=/dev/hda1
    > image=/mnt/hdb1/boot/vmlinuz-2.4.6
    > label="Fedora Core 3"
    > initrd=/mnt/hdb1/boot/initrd.img-2.4.6
    > root=/dev/hdb1
    >
    > If FC3 is installed to /dev/hdb1 and Mandrake is bootable, you should be
    > able to use something similar to the above in /etc/lilo.conf to install
    > the bootloader onto the second disk's MBR.
    >
    > (Note: you don't have to install the bootloader from the distro it boots
    > into -- e.g. you could install it from Mandrake or the FC rescue CD.)


    THank you Trent;
    excellent reference & example conf file.

  10. Question about Linux

    Trent Buck wrote:
    > The definitive reference for this stuff is the From Power Up to Bash
    > Prompt HOWTO,
    > http://tldp.org/HOWTO/From-PowerUp-T...mpt-HOWTO.html
    >
    >> So can you tell me how do I mannually update the second drives MBR so
    >> that it can boot the Linux OS that's installed on it?

    >
    > I use LILO (rather than GRUB). The lilo.conf file looks something like
    > this:
    > . . .
    >
    > If FC3 is installed to /dev/hdb1 and Mandrake is bootable, you should be
    > able to use something similar to the above in /etc/lilo.conf to install
    > the bootloader onto the second disk's MBR.
    >
    > (Note: you don't have to install the bootloader from the distro it boots
    > into -- e.g. you could install it from Mandrake or the FC rescue CD.)


    I suspect this issue is behind a long standing problem
    many professionals (most of whom are Unix users) have had with Linux
    for years;
    [[ though we do not need Linux any more than we would need MS-Dos;
    we do like to occassionaly have a look at whatever is on offer;
    to that end when someone has a bit of spare time he goes to throw
    something like Linux onto a spare drive. . . ]]

    yesterday in doing Web searches for clues on this
    Linux boot vs. multiple drives issue I quickly came across several long
    standing (since Fedora 1 & 2) complaints about NT users who also couldn't
    get Linux to boot after installation. These requests from NT users had
    simply gone unanswered; elsewise were side tracked into talk about
    re-arranging their drives.
    - - that's when a horrable possibility occuried to me.

    - - What IF, the Linux developers were so accustomed to Bill Gates MS Dos
    envirnoment; that they never foresaw or supported the possibility of Linux
    installation being on a second drive.
    - - that would not be either wicked nor as stupid as some people may
    imagine; after all essentially the entire Linux user base are ex-MS users;
    and so complaints about the probnlem would be so rare that the Linux
    developers could discount them as end-user mis-understanding rather than a
    Linux installation weakness - - even for over ten years.
    And Linux users, like Microsoft users might become accustomed to the
    concept that they should only install a OS to the primary drive.

    My question then, is in two parts:
    Q1: does the above sound consistant with your experience & what you've heard
    from other LInux users? (I suspose i.e. are you about the only Linux person
    you know of who has Linux on a non-primary drive? (ignoring the CD based
    systems that are specially packaged for running from a CD; I'm refering to
    Linux being on a second drive etc.)

    Q2: does this also mean that I will have to re-write the MBR every time I
    want to update the Linux kernel?

  11. Re: Question about Linux

    Up spake Daeron:
    > - - What IF, the Linux developers were so accustomed to Bill Gates MS Dos
    > envirnoment; that they never foresaw or supported the possibility of Linux
    > installation being on a second drive.


    I think you are confusing the terms `command-line environment' and
    `Microsoft-DOS environment'. The latter is an *example* of the former,
    but Linux does not (normally) have anything to do with Microsoft DOS.

    Since this is a supposition, we will ignore the bajillions (read: many)
    Linux users who dual-boot Linux & OS-X, Linux & Linux, Linux & AmigaOS,
    .... I personally have six bootable root partitions (all Debian) across
    three IDE drives. That means *five* non-primary boot partitions, with
    no mention of Microsoft OS.

    > after all essentially the entire Linux user base are ex-MS users;


    This is completely wrong; the number of users who migrated from other
    unices (Solaris, *BSD, etc) alone is pretty large. Just because *you*
    have never seen those on a desktop doesn't mean that academics and
    engineers haven't.

    > My question then, is in two parts:
    > Q1: does the above sound consistant with your experience & what you've heard
    > from other LInux users? (I suspose i.e. are you about the only Linux person
    > you know of who has Linux on a non-primary drive?


    I don't know the partitioning geometry of anybody else, so I can't say
    either way. However dual-booting is *very* common, and if OS-X or NT is
    already installed on hda1 it makes sense to put Linux on hda2 or hdb.

    > Q2: does this also mean that I will have to re-write the MBR every time I
    > want to update the Linux kernel?


    Short answer: yes.

    Long answer: no, because you can manually specify the kernel as a boot
    parameter, but this means you'd have to type image=/boot/vmlinuz-x.y.z
    *every* reboot. I think GRUB can also do in-place editing (i.e. you
    edit & reinstall the bootloader from the bootloader), but I'm not sure.

    --
    -trent
    > When you think about it, C++ sort of implies that it won't be any
    > better than C until after you've used it.


    And if you mention it twice in the same sentence, it's undefined?

  12. Re: Reqst: How get Fedora to boot

    Up spake Charles Sullivan:
    > When installing a new OS I generally rejumper the drive as
    > the first drive for the duration of the installation, then
    > restore it to its original configuration and tweak
    > /etc/fstab appropriately. That way it gets it's own MBR (which
    > isn't used for anything so long as it remains a second or
    > subsequent drive).


    On most linuces you can choose where the bootloader is installed -- you
    don't need to physically set the drive to `Master'. These days you'll
    probably need to start the installer in `expert' mode.

    --
    -trent
    Can you wait tables, Bar?
    No, but I can kill people.
    Failing that, can you bring deadly veng-
    Ah, you've worked in a resturant before? Fantastic.

  13. Re: Question about Linux

    Trent Buck wrote:
    > Up spake Daeron:
    >> - - What IF, the Linux developers were so accustomed to Bill Gates MS
    >> Dos envirnoment;


    translation:
    back twenty years ago
    '8 people (users of Intel '86) use processors based around four registers
    and fixed interrupts and paged memory - later extra registers etc. are
    added etc.
    '6 people (users of Motrola '6 family) use processors based around
    interrupts that present an address vector
    cheap silicon & mass marketing vs. quality silicon & code.

    MS-DOS machines required a BIOS to recognise a hard drive at power-up ;
    but the non-MS OS's could mount & un-mount drives at will and call the
    drive by any name they so wished.
    MS-DOS also required the drive to have a MS designed "partition" system;
    MS-customers are accustomed to having to comply with the machines
    requirements... mostly have to accept things as presented... they also
    mostly install software by downloading a pre-built binary which somebody
    else has compiled somewhere with somebody's code.

    Then came the open-source efforts to bring quality code to everyone.

    At a technical level, there is IMHO no meaningfull difference between the
    Open Source BSD's & Linux as an example; at a legal level I actuall prefer
    the GNU license over the BSD license ten fold; but at the software
    distribution system, I prefer the BSD ports system to the Linux RPM four
    fold; and six years ago at home it was much easier for me to switch to a
    Unix system that was very similar to other Unix's;

    >> that they never foresaw or supported the possibility of
    >> Linux installation being on a second drive.

    >
    > ... I personally have six bootable root partitions (all Debian) across
    > three IDE drives. That means *five* non-primary boot partitions, with
    > no mention of Microsoft OS.
    >

    Ten years ago my 486 had seven different OS's all happily co-existing.
    I can't even remember what they were now.,.. MS-Dos, PC-Dos, OS/2, NT,
    they were the ones I mostly used at the time.

    >> after all essentially the entire Linux user base are ex-MS users;

    >
    > This is completely wrong; the number of users who migrated from other
    > unices (Solaris, *BSD, etc) alone is pretty large.

    over 10% of the users?

    My point being that not enough people were installing to a second or third
    drive to convince the authors of anaconda & similar installation routines
    that there was a problem/need for their installer to support people
    installing to a second or third drive.


    I don't have the array of other Linux install routines on hand to test;
    if I did then I would know the answer to the question;
    do the Installation Routines make allowance for installations to a second
    or third drive... OR, do people have to work around the installer to do
    such installations?

    ====================
    For example the Fedora Core 3 - anaconda system I do have in front of me;
    does not *seem* to accomodate it.
    I have now used it over a dozen times trying to find some means of getting
    it to install to the second drive & leaving it bootable while leaving the
    first drive in peace.

    The nearest Tempation I've found is to go in a second time ; select
    "Upgrade" then configure their "GRUB" as desired as IF you were willing to
    have it over-write your primary MBR; then proceed; then on the NEXT screen
    it then gives you the option of directing it to the MBR of the second
    drive.
    WONDERFULL, Or so you think.
    You allow it to continue its "Upgrade"; and it completes by putting up a
    message that it did not need to update any Kernel modules & therefore WILL
    NOT update the MBR (which it never wrote to in the first place).
    It gives you NO option of committing the bootmanager to the MBR, thereby
    making the system bootable. It just tells you it won't do it & reboots.

  14. Re: Question about Linux

    Daeron wrote:
    > Trent Buck wrote:
    >


    --- clip clip ---

    > - - What IF, the Linux developers were so accustomed to Bill Gates MS Dos
    > envirnoment; that they never foresaw or supported the possibility of Linux
    > installation being on a second drive.
    > - - that would not be either wicked nor as stupid as some people may
    > imagine; after all essentially the entire Linux user base are ex-MS users;
    > and so complaints about the probnlem would be so rare that the Linux
    > developers could discount them as end-user mis-understanding rather than a
    > Linux installation weakness - - even for over ten years.
    > And Linux users, like Microsoft users might become accustomed to the
    > concept that they should only install a OS to the primary drive.
    >
    > My question then, is in two parts:


    > Q1: does the above sound consistant with your experience & what you've heard
    > from other LInux users? (I suspose i.e. are you about the only Linux person
    > you know of who has Linux on a non-primary drive? (ignoring the CD based
    > systems that are specially packaged for running from a CD; I'm refering to
    > Linux being on a second drive etc.)



    > Q2: does this also mean that I will have to re-write the MBR every time I
    > want to update the Linux kernel?


    The real blame goes to the designers of the IBM PC architecture.
    The boot starts from the system BIOS, and it dictates the boot
    conditions.

    The bootup with e.g. Sun Sparcstations is totally different
    and the limitations are different from the above ones.

    The technical limitations on a PC are:

    - the bootstrap process has to use the BIOS disk drivers,
    as there are no other methods to access the system disks
    until the kernel is in and started up,

    - there is very little space in the MBR, so the
    next stage of the bootstrap has to lie on the
    same disk, unless the MBR is coded to boot the
    other drive,

    - the BIOS runs in 16 bit real mode, so the bootstrap
    has to be compatible.

    The LILO or GRUB needs to load the main code (/boot/boot.b with LILO,
    stage1.5 or stage2 with GRUB) from the first bootstrap disk.

    The same limitation applies to the Windows NT family systems,
    the file ntldr has to reside on the first disk (with some
    fascinating additional limitations). With the DOS-based
    Windowses, the DOS files (msdos.sys, io.sys) have to lie
    on the first disk (with, again, some extra limitations).

    There is a single-sector intermediate boot capable
    to boot the MBR of any BIOS-accessible disk. It can
    be kicked up with e.g. the NT loader.

    --

    Tauno Voipio
    tauno voipio (at) iki fi


  15. Re: Reqst: How get Fedora to boot

    Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:58:48 +1100Daeronд

    > Have installed Fedora on a Second Hard Drive;
    > BUT it did NOT write to the MBR of the second hard drive;
    > and it's anaconda installation routine refuses to update or write a new
    > MBR.
    >
    > Can someone please tell me which Linux utility Fedora is meant to write to
    > its MBR with, and how to use it.
    >
    > I looked at the "grub" thing & used "grub-install" - - I was hoping it
    > would install a bootloader type thing but instead has installed "grub" as
    > some kind of limited command line that is only usable if you know what
    > names Linux calles things by.
    >
    > I just want one of these Linux drives to be able to boot;
    > can any Linux user please help.


    grub-install /dev/hdx
    IF you are using FC3, you'd better mknod in your "/dev/", to make two
    file hdx and hdx1

  16. Re: Reqst: How get Fedora to boot

    In article , Charles Sullivan wrote:
    >On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 03:44:02 +1100, Daeron wrote:
    >
    >> Charles Sullivan wrote:
    >>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:58:48 +1100, Daeron wrote:
    >>>> Can someone please tell me which Linux utility Fedora is meant to write
    >>>> to its MBR with, and how to use it.
    >>>>
    >>>> I looked at the "grub" thing & used "grub-install" - - I was hoping it
    >>>> would install a bootloader type thing but instead has installed "grub" as
    >>>> some kind of limited command line that is only usable if you know what
    >>>> names Linux calles things by.
    >>>>
    >>>> I just want one of these Linux drives to be able to boot;
    >>>> can any Linux user please help.
    >>>
    >>> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but how would a system boot from
    >>> the MBR of a second drive? The system is always going to start at
    >>> the MBR of the first drive (unless your BIOS has an option to do
    >>> otherwise).

    >>
    >> ** In short ** The First drive's MBR points to it's OS's & any other drives,
    >> the MBR on /the other drives should at least know about the OS on that
    >> drive. I can not recall any OS installation routine that has ever
    >> installed itself without ensuring the drive it was on was bootable.

    >
    >If you're talking about Windows, it _insists_ on being the first
    >drive for its installation.


    Yes, but...
    You can use the Grub map function to make the second (or third, etc.) become
    the first. You can also hide the other drives with Grub during installation.

    I have W2K on the master drive and RH7.1 on the slave drive. BIOS boots to
    the slave drive which is where I have Grub on the MBR. This makes the slave
    drive (hd0) in Grub-speak. To boot Windoze I map the master drive back to
    (hd0).

    Dr. G.

  17. Re: Reqst: How get Fedora to boot

    On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 19:39:29 +0000, Dr. Grok wrote:

    > In article , Charles Sullivan wrote:
    >>If you're talking about Windows, it _insists_ on being the first
    >>drive for its installation.

    >
    > Yes, but...
    > You can use the Grub map function to make the second (or third, etc.) become
    > the first. You can also hide the other drives with Grub during installation.


    You can do that after it's installed. But Windows is generally
    installed by booting from a CD (or floppy in the old days), and
    under that situation Grub is out of the picture until after
    the installation. Well, mostly out of the picture, since Windows
    has to be rebooted several times before it's fully installed. To
    avoid hassles I rejumper the drive as primary master for a Windows
    install and change it back afterwards.

    > I have W2K on the master drive and RH7.1 on the slave drive. BIOS boots to
    > the slave drive which is where I have Grub on the MBR. This makes the slave
    > drive (hd0) in Grub-speak. To boot Windoze I map the master drive back to
    > (hd0).


    Yup, I do something similar. But I boot Linux from the first drive
    and relegate Windows versions to their own drives.


  18. Solution: How get Fedora to boot

    Daeron wrote:
    > Have installed Fedora on a Second Hard Drive;
    > BUT it did NOT write to the MBR of the second hard drive;
    > and it's anaconda installation routine refuses to update or write a new
    > MBR.
    >

    Found the devil. SOmething Trent mentioned about "advanced" options;
    and sure enough the ONLY chance to get anaconda to install a *bootable*
    second drive is concealed where the sensible would not find it.

    Untill they repair anaconda it CAN NOT be fixed after the oriniginal
    install. To install to a second drive this MUST be done during the initial
    installation.

    At the screen where it wants to setup "GRUB"s;
    there is a option at the bottom of the GUI page that asks if you want to
    specify special parameters? .. .. You have to select this option.
    .. .. it's text input box is redundant, IF you select this option the next
    screen gives you the option of saving the grubs generated bbotstrape to a
    partition of the drive you are installing to.

  19. Re: Question about Linux

    Up spake Daeron:
    > It's hard to know whom one should dispise the more between Gates & Intel;


    Anyone here who actually *likes* Microsoft is *not* going to be
    persuaded by ad hominem. If you want to bash Microsoft, IBM or anyone
    else, please use OBJECTIVE arguments with FACTUAL REFERENCES[0].

    [0] Like this: http://www.vcnet.com/bms/features/serendipities.html
    --
    -trent
    There are no problems that cannot be solved by the judicious use of high
    explosives. -- British Commando quote, circa WWII

  20. Re: Question about Linux

    Trent Buck wrote:
    > Up spake Daeron:
    >> It's hard to know whom one should dispise the more between Gates &
    >> Intel;

    >
    > Anyone here who actually *likes* Microsoft is *not* going to be
    > persuaded by ad hominem. If you want to bash Microsoft, IBM or anyone
    > else, please use OBJECTIVE arguments with FACTUAL REFERENCES[0].
    >
    > [0] Like this: http://www.vcnet.com/bms/features/serendipities.html


    Mine was a 'quick' kick at the two coy's that generally do not get the
    comments which they most deserve; as you would know it would take both
    pages to clarify the full background & specifics of each issue, and would
    on the most part relay upon off-line publications/documents.
    Small triva such as Gates 1989 statement about OS/2 I may have a video file
    of; but other more serious items are less clear, for example NT 1.0;
    where did you hear about its OS/2 origin? I heard it along with thirty
    other engineers at a IBM NT course because that info was felt to be the
    quickest way to bring us up to speed with NT. I can't prove that MS simply
    did a global change from "DOS" to "WIN" of the OS/2 source, but I have no
    reasonable doubts about it.
    The URL you refer to is nicely written, but it dosen't really offer any
    more than I've been willing to do off the late-night cuff.

    These are companies which effectivly have used US Presidents are golf
    caddies & to reverse legal decisions with; it is no small task to
    bibiograph the history of either MS or Intel. And as to "objective" - who
    would be interest unless they have a vested interest? Such is life.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast