[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: grub-0.91 vs. -

From: oz
Subject: Re: grub-0.91 vs. -
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-

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 

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- also works without it in 
this special case.  Maybe I should mention, the boot-partition is also a 

Schöne Grüße

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ursprüngliche Nachricht <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Am 22/04/02, 14:37:35, schrieb Jochen Hoenicke 
<address@hidden> zum Thema Re: grub-0.91 vs. 

> On Saturday, 6. April 2002 18:56, address@hidden wrote:
> > FYI:
> >
> > Since grub- 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- 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

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]