[arch-general] amd64 systems and archlinux
I am learning more about my hardware doing an archlinux installation on an amd k8 athelon system. Apparently grub won't work without use of blocklists and it complains that blocklists are unreliable so cannot embed and for that reason won't install. Fortunately another boot loader other than grub is available. I'll try that one later. Too late tonight to do it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- jude <jdashiel@shellworld.net> Adobe fiend for failing to Flash
2012/9/10 Jude DaShiell <jdashiel@shellworld.net>
I am learning more about my hardware doing an archlinux installation on an amd k8 athelon system. Apparently grub won't work without use of blocklists and it complains that blocklists are unreliable so cannot embed and for that reason won't install. Fortunately another boot loader other than grub is available. I'll try that one later. Too late tonight to do it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- jude <jdashiel@shellworld.net> Adobe fiend for failing to Flash
What is your hardware I have arch in a k8 box.
On 09/09/12 at 11:15pm, Jude DaShiell wrote:
I am learning more about my hardware doing an archlinux installation on an amd k8 athelon system. Apparently grub won't work without use of blocklists and it complains that blocklists are unreliable so cannot embed and for that reason won't install. Fortunately another boot loader other than grub is available. I'll try that one later. Too late tonight to do it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- jude <jdashiel@shellworld.net> Adobe fiend for failing to Flash
Are you trying to install to the mbr of a partition? If so, this error is expected. See our amazing wiki here: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/GRUB2#Install_to_Partition_or_Partition... Regards, -- Curtis Shimamoto sugar.and.scruffy@gmail.com
On Sun, 9 Sep 2012, Curtis Shimamoto wrote:
On 09/09/12 at 11:15pm, Jude DaShiell wrote:
I am learning more about my hardware doing an archlinux installation on an amd k8 athelon system. Apparently grub won't work without use of blocklists and it complains that blocklists are unreliable so cannot embed and for that reason won't install. Fortunately another boot loader other than grub is available. I'll try that one later. Too late tonight to do it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- jude <jdashiel@shellworld.net> Adobe fiend for failing to Flash
Are you trying to install to the mbr of a partition? If so, this error is expected.
See our amazing wiki here: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/GRUB2#Install_to_Partition_or_Partition...
Regards, -- Curtis Shimamoto sugar.and.scruffy@gmail.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- jude <jdashiel@shellworld.net> Adobe fiend for failing to Flash I had intended to install grub into mbr on /dev/sda1. I used --target=i386-pc as provided in the grub-install step and did so with misgivings since the machine I use is an x86-64 machine. The only x86-64 target on the arch beginner's guide was for ufi not bios. A bug like this in grub were I to write software for my employer would have me fired that same day. A software package can't keep track of its files it creates and it uses is a package with no self-defense capabilities. Sorry about that, but some of us started programming when the only thing creating webs were real spiders and web page developer was a job title that had yet to be created.
I had intended to install grub into mbr on /dev/sda1. I used --target=i386-pc as provided in the grub-install step and did so with misgivings since the machine I use is an x86-64 machine. The only x86-64 target on the arch beginner's guide was for ufi not bios. A bug like this in grub were I to write software for my employer would have me fired that same day. A software package can't keep track of its files it creates and it uses is a package with no self-defense capabilities. Sorry about that, but some of us started programming when the only thing creating webs were real spiders and web page developer was a job title that had yet to be created.
The MBR is the first 512 bytes of a device[1]. There is no MBR of a single partition. [1]https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/MBR -- xmpp: bjo@schafweide.org bjo.nord-west.org | nord-west.org | freifunk-ol.de
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Bjoern Franke wrote:
I had intended to install grub into mbr on /dev/sda1. I used --target=i386-pc as provided in the grub-install step and did so with misgivings since the machine I use is an x86-64 machine. The only x86-64 target on the arch beginner's guide was for ufi not bios. A bug like this in grub were I to write software for my employer would have me fired that same day. A software package can't keep track of its files it creates and it uses is a package with no self-defense capabilities. Sorry about that, but some of us started programming when the only thing creating webs were real spiders and web page developer was a job title that had yet to be created.
The MBR is the first 512 bytes of a device[1]. There is no MBR of a single partition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- jude <jdashiel@shellworld.net> Adobe fiend for failing to Flash I have /dev/sda1 root, /dev/sda2 swap and /dev/sda3 /home. So this is not a single partition setup but a three partition setup if you count swap.
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 04:29:22AM -0400, Jude DaShiell wrote:
I have /dev/sda1 root, /dev/sda2 swap and /dev/sda3 /home. So this is not a single partition setup but a three partition setup if you count swap. Assume for this that /dev/sda is the bootloader _AND_ the device. As was said before: the first 512 bytes of the _hard drive device_ is the bootloader. (Assuming MBR)
Perhaps you could go a little more in depth on your install process, maybe tell us what exactly you are trying to do. -- John Hutchison Programmieren und Informatik-Abteilung Feiern Sie 21 Jahre Linux! gplus.to/athetius
On 09/10/12 at 04:20am, John Hutchison wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 04:29:22AM -0400, Jude DaShiell wrote:
I have /dev/sda1 root, /dev/sda2 swap and /dev/sda3 /home. So this is not a single partition setup but a three partition setup if you count swap. Assume for this that /dev/sda is the bootloader _AND_ the device. As was said before: the first 512 bytes of the _hard drive device_ is the bootloader. (Assuming MBR)
Perhaps you could go a little more in depth on your install process, maybe tell us what exactly you are trying to do.
-- John Hutchison Programmieren und Informatik-Abteilung Feiern Sie 21 Jahre Linux! gplus.to/athetius
The link I provided clearly shows you how to install to the mbr of a partition. I used to have to do this with my Mac as not to ruin the windows partition (I think that is why I was doing that). So it is possible. Whether it is a wise thing to do is questionable. OP, I think if you just follow Arch's grub2 wiki, you probably would have seen your error and/or resolved any problem you may have had. Grub2 has this "bug" because it is not how it is intended to be used. Install it to /dev/sda like normal and you should be fine. -- Curtis Shimamoto sugar.and.scruffy@gmail.com
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 4:14 AM, Curtis Shimamoto < sugar.and.scruffy@gmail.com> wrote:
The link I provided clearly shows you how to install to the mbr of a partition.
As Bjoern Franke pointed out previously in this thread, there is no such thing as "the MBR of a partition". MBRs are only at the beginning of devices, not partitions. The guide you linked explains how to install grub to "the boot sector of a partition". It may seem like nit-picking, but I think that precision in this kind of issues is important, because a confused user could very well wipe out all his data... -- Rodrigo
On 09/11/12 at 09:58am, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 4:14 AM, Curtis Shimamoto < sugar.and.scruffy@gmail.com> wrote:
The link I provided clearly shows you how to install to the mbr of a partition.
As Bjoern Franke pointed out previously in this thread, there is no such thing as "the MBR of a partition". MBRs are only at the beginning of devices, not partitions. The guide you linked explains how to install grub to "the boot sector of a partition".
It may seem like nit-picking, but I think that precision in this kind of issues is important, because a confused user could very well wipe out all his data...
-- Rodrigo
Okay, I can agree with that. In any case, it seemed as though th OP did not bother to really read through the page I linked to. If he/she had, he would have seen the incredibly not recommended option to install to the boot sector of the partition. Unfortunately, in this case, one is made to use the --force flag to make it work w/o grub complaining. -- Curtis Shimamoto sugar.and.scruffy@gmail.com
Am 10.09.2012 10:12, schrieb Jude DaShiell:
I had intended to install grub into mbr on /dev/sda1. I used --target=i386-pc as provided in the grub-install step and did so with misgivings since the machine I use is an x86-64 machine. The only x86-64 target on the arch beginner's guide was for ufi not bios.
There is no x86_64 BIOS target. There never was. Unless you have EFI, your bootloader code will be i386 code (or worse, some 8086-compat code, but I am not an expert on this).
A bug like this in grub were I to write software for my employer would have me fired that same day. A software package can't keep track of its files it creates and it uses is a package with no self-defense capabilities.
I have no idea what you are trying to say, but it definitely doesn't belong here.
Sorry about that, but some of us started programming when the only thing creating webs were real spiders and web page developer was a job title that had yet to be created.
What are you trying to achieve with this post? It does not help solve your problem, it doesn't add anything technical to the discussion - actually, I don't know what you are trying to say here, and I don't care. If you want _any_ help here, please keep it objective and technical. Let me also express part of my personal opinion, which others might disagree with: If you wanted high quality software, why did you install GRUB? If you want a decent bootloader, use syslinux.
According to Thomas Bächler:
Let me also express part of my personal opinion, which others might disagree with: If you wanted high quality software, why did you install GRUB? If you want a decent bootloader, use syslinux.
Actually, at least from where I'm sitting, this "personal opinion" has a good bit of technical merrit. I can confirm that my life with boot loaders has become much easier since switching to syslinux, and you are the second regular contributor who has stated this. I was forced to chainload Windows XP after resizing a partition on this old machine I am still using, hopefully until the end of the day. This was already configured into syslinux by default, and worked flawlessly without modification. Additionally, the Arch defaults were sane enough to be able to run with very little modification, only needing the label for my root partition in the append line for the kernel. A big +1 from me for syslinux. ~Kyle
On 10/09/2012 6:57 AM, Kyle wrote:
According to Thomas Bächler:
Let me also express part of my personal opinion, which others might disagree with: If you wanted high quality software, why did you install GRUB? If you want a decent bootloader, use syslinux.
Actually, at least from where I'm sitting, this "personal opinion" has a good bit of technical merrit. I can confirm that my life with boot loaders has become much easier since switching to syslinux, and you are the second regular contributor who has stated this. I was forced to chainload Windows XP after resizing a partition on this old machine I am still using, hopefully until the end of the day. This was already configured into syslinux by default, and worked flawlessly without modification. Additionally, the Arch defaults were sane enough to be able to run with very little modification, only needing the label for my root partition in the append line for the kernel. A big +1 from me for syslinux. ~Kyle Also prefer syslinux. In my opinion when the news post came up that said grub was deprecated it should have mentioned syslinux, since it's much closer to grub-legacy than grub2 is, and trivial to install.
On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 08:26 -0400, Stephen E. Baker wrote:
On 10/09/2012 6:57 AM, Kyle wrote:
According to Thomas Bächler:
Let me also express part of my personal opinion, which others might disagree with: If you wanted high quality software, why did you install GRUB? If you want a decent bootloader, use syslinux.
Actually, at least from where I'm sitting, this "personal opinion" has a good bit of technical merrit. I can confirm that my life with boot loaders has become much easier since switching to syslinux, and you are the second regular contributor who has stated this. I was forced to chainload Windows XP after resizing a partition on this old machine I am still using, hopefully until the end of the day. This was already configured into syslinux by default, and worked flawlessly without modification. Additionally, the Arch defaults were sane enough to be able to run with very little modification, only needing the label for my root partition in the append line for the kernel. A big +1 from me for syslinux. ~Kyle Also prefer syslinux. In my opinion when the news post came up that said grub was deprecated it should have mentioned syslinux, since it's much closer to grub-legacy than grub2 is, and trivial to install.
I'm still using grub legacy on my machine. Is there a reason not to use grub legacy anymore? I also used grub2, but I don't like it. I never used any other bootloader on a PC. I never noticed any drawbacks using grub legacy. Regards, Ralf
According to Ralf Mardorf:
I'm still using grub legacy on my machine. Is there a reason not to use grub legacy anymore? I also used grub2, but I don't like it. I never used any other bootloader on a PC. I never noticed any drawbacks using grub legacy. If you are planning to keep your bootloader installation the same, and if you don't plan to change your disk configuration or /boot filesystem, grub legacy should meet your needs with no problems at all. You already have what you need, it just isn't being updated in the repos.
The reasons for using syslinux or grub2 include better support for /boot filesystems including btrfs as well as GPT and EFI support. If these or other features don't matter to you, you can certainly continue using grub legacy until or unless they do. Hope this helps. ~Kyle
On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 12:25 -0400, Kyle wrote:
According to Ralf Mardorf:
I'm still using grub legacy on my machine. Is there a reason not to use grub legacy anymore? I also used grub2, but I don't like it. I never used any other bootloader on a PC. I never noticed any drawbacks using grub legacy. If you are planning to keep your bootloader installation the same, and if you don't plan to change your disk configuration or /boot filesystem, grub legacy should meet your needs with no problems at all. You already have what you need, it just isn't being updated in the repos.
The reasons for using syslinux or grub2 include better support for /boot filesystems including btrfs as well as GPT and EFI support. If these or other features don't matter to you, you can certainly continue using grub legacy until or unless they do. Hope this helps. ~Kyle
Thank you :)
Hi all, recently I got new machine at work, on which I decided to try some stuff new to me, and some not so new but not used together. So I got my machine running on uefi/gpt/softraid1/lvm/systemd in preparation to get xen on it (buckets of fun, and quite pleasant ride after all - at least it was better than I expected). Anyway - after some time spent on experimenting in virtualbox I decided to try on living thing, and it mostly works now, but I seem to be unable to get it to automatically set fonts in tty[1-6]. During startup, the fonts change for a while, but as soon as getty is run, fonts return to default. If I login into tty[1-6] and call systemd-vconsole-setup manually, fonts are loaded correctly. I don't see anything bad in journal or on screen during boot, at least nothing that got my attention. Also, it works when not using systemd, so I guess that config file is OK. This machine will not have X on it, so I boot it into multi-user.target. Only things I did to systemd was write config files the usual way and enable few services - sshd, ntpd, lvm and network (one from wiki, the static ethernet config). Systemd is quite new to me, have I missed something obvious? At the first look, the issue seems to be similar to https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744108 but I don't like idea of only solution present there, with replacing config file with hardcoded version ( https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744108#c26 ), so I decided to ask - anyone had similar issue and solved it already, preferably in nicer way? Maybe service that will be run "After" getty@*.service? Cheers, Andrzej.
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Andrzej Giniewicz <gginiu@gmail.com> wrote:
During startup, the fonts change for a while, but as soon as getty is run, fonts return to default. If I login into tty[1-6] and call systemd-vconsole-setup manually, fonts are loaded correctly. I don't see anything bad in journal or on screen during boot, at least nothing that got my attention. Also, it works when not using systemd, so I guess that config file is OK.
What is the output of: #systemctl status systemd-vconsole-setup.service ? And if you are into it you can also post the output of: #systemctl show systemd-vconsole-setup.service Just in case. Regards. -- Rodrigo
On 11.09.2012 17:13, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
What is the output of: #systemctl status systemd-vconsole-setup.service ? http://pastie.org/private/phhozort7vuasmeo1yw4a And if you are into it you can also post the output of: #systemctl show systemd-vconsole-setup.service Just in case. http://pastie.org/private/b67hafbx5tmxo3qfvt64ta
here you go. The service is started and exits with success, which can be seen on screen for like 1 second. The reset of fonts is I believe connected to console switch, in log first I have: Console: switching to colour dummy device 80x25 ... (it's not logged, but I'm 99% sure that systemd-vconsole-setup.service is called now) Console: switching to colour frame buffer device 180x56 ... (starting from this, system falls back to default font) Is it possible to make the systemd service run twice or only after second console switch? Cheers, Andrzej.
participants (11)
-
Andrzej Giniewicz
-
Bjoern Franke
-
Curtis Shimamoto
-
John Hutchison
-
Jude DaShiell
-
Kyle
-
Ralf Mardorf
-
Rodrigo Rivas
-
Stephen E. Baker
-
Thomas Bächler
-
Victor Silva