Re: Attempt to Move Root

Petter Adsen a écrit : > Gene Heskett wrote: > >> I made the mistake of trying to install a wheezy derivitive on a 2T >> drive that had been prepared using GPT partitions. The installer >> could not see them at all, so after 2 tries, I just let it go ahead >> and do its

Re: Attempt to Move Root

On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 10:07:13 -0500 Gene Heskett wrote: > I made the mistake of trying to install a wheezy derivitive on a 2T > drive that had been prepared using GPT partitions. The installer > could not see them at all, so after 2 tries, I just let it go ahead > and do

Re: Attempt to Move Root

Le septidi 7 nivôse, an CCXXIV, Pascal Hambourg a écrit : > I repeat : the point is not MBR/MSDOS vs GPT. It is that the GRUB > installer handles *specially* one type of partition which exists only in > GPT style : "BIOS Boot" aka "bios_grub". > > Are you talking about the installer code run by

Re: Attempt to Move Root

On Sunday 27 December 2015 09:30:38 Nicolas George wrote: > Le septidi 7 nivôse, an CCXXIV, Pascal Hambourg a écrit : > > There was nothing confusing in Sven's message until you mentionned > > UEFI in response to "I love the GPT". Why did you start talking > > about UEFI ? > > For the early stage

Re: Attempt to Move Root

Nicolas George a écrit : > > In the meantime, I can tell what I saw in the code, and this is: GRUB makes > no difference between MBR-style partitions (that it calls internally > "msdos") and GPT. I repeat : the point is not MBR/MSDOS vs GPT. It is that the GRUB installer handles *specially* one

Re: Attempt to Move Root

Nicolas George a écrit : > Le septidi 7 nivôse, an CCXXIV, Pascal Hambourg a écrit : >> You are confusing GPT (partition table format) and UEFI (firmware and >> boot interface). > > Quite the contrary, I am trying to de-confuse by using exactly the correct > terms. There was nothing confusing in

Re: Attempt to Move Root

Le septidi 7 nivôse, an CCXXIV, Pascal Hambourg a écrit : > *Cough* > At least it was supposed to. The more I mess with UEFI implementations, > the more I feel dubious about its real advantages. Six messages ago, I wrote "or would be if it was correctly implemented by vendors"; you read it since

Re: Attempt to Move Root

Pascal Hambourg wrote: > Nicolas George a écrit : >> Le duodi 2 nivôse, an CCXXIV, Sven Hartge a écrit : >>> And this is why I love the GPT. There is a defined space for the >>> bootloader to be and no nether region of swirly unknowness between >>> the MBR and the start

Re: Attempt to Move Root

Sven Hartge a écrit : > Pascal Hambourg wrote: >>> Le duodi 2 nivôse, an CCXXIV, Sven Hartge a écrit : > And this is why I love the GPT. There is a defined space for the bootloader to be and no nether region of swirly unknowness between the MBR and the

Re: Attempt to Move Root

Le septidi 7 nivôse, an CCXXIV, Pascal Hambourg a écrit : > There was nothing confusing in Sven's message until you mentionned UEFI > in response to "I love the GPT". Why did you start talking about UEFI ? For the early stage of booting, there is no difference between MBR-style partitions (it is

Re: Attempt to Move Root

Le septidi 7 nivôse, an CCXXIV, Pascal Hambourg a écrit : > You are confusing GPT (partition table format) and UEFI (firmware and > boot interface). Quite the contrary, I am trying to de-confuse by using exactly the correct terms. > Can you tell more ? AFAIK, there is no equivalent to the "BIOS

Re: Attempt to Move Root

Nicolas George a écrit : > Le septidi 7 nivôse, an CCXXIV, Pascal Hambourg a écrit : >> There was nothing confusing in Sven's message until you mentionned UEFI >> in response to "I love the GPT". Why did you start talking about UEFI ? > > For the early stage of booting, there is no difference

Re: Attempt to Move Root

On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 10:33:56 -0500 (EST), Stephen Powell wrote: > On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 10:57:41 -0500 (EST), Nicolas George wrote: >> ... >> I noticed that LILO seems to be actually capable >> of finding the sectors for files on LVM. > > In the general case, the sectors of a file on an LVM2

Re: Attempt to Move Root

Nicolas George a écrit : > Le duodi 2 nivôse, an CCXXIV, Sven Hartge a écrit : >> And this is why I love the GPT. There is a defined space for the >> bootloader to be and no nether region of swirly unknowness between the >> MBR and the start of the first partition. Note that current partition

Re: Attempt to Move Root

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 14:44:31 -0500 (EST), Sven Hartge wrote: > > In ye olde days (pre-Windowsm 98) some programs (I think Photoshop did > it.) wrote licence data into that space, because it was unused. The copy > protection scheme of some games also tried to hide information there. > I can

Re: Attempt to Move Root

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 10:57:41 -0500 (EST), Nicolas George wrote: > > What you write is slightly inaccurate. The core of your inaccuracy is this: > LILO does not use the BIOS to read FILES, but SECTORS. How to map files to > sectors is entirely LILO's problem. That depends on your point of view.

Re: Attempt to Move Root

Le quartidi 4 nivôse, an CCXXIV, Sven Hartge a écrit : > > The same thing would have worked with without GPT. Especially if you use a > > bios_grub partition instead of an EFI system partition. > Eh? I did use a bios_grub partition, because the server in question uses > a legacy BIOS to boot.

Re: Attempt to Move Root (SOLVED!!)

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 9:52 AM, David Baron wrote: > On reboot (to old system or otherwise), the UUID of the target partition was > CHANGED! Unlikely, how do you know? What would change them during a reboot? > If the problem was not hidden behind a screenfull of lvm

Re: Attempt to Move Root (SOLVED!!)

On Wednesday 23 December 2015 12:39:18 Anders Andersson wrote: > On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 9:52 AM, David Baron wrote: > > On reboot (to old system or otherwise), the UUID of the target partition > > was CHANGED! > > Unlikely, how do you know? What would change them during a

Re: Attempt to Move Root

Nicolas George wrote: > Le duodi 2 nivôse, an CCXXIV, Sven Hartge a écrit : >> And this is why I love the GPT. There is a defined space for the >> bootloader to be and no nether region of swirly unknowness between the >> MBR and the start of the first partition. >> Also this:

Re: Attempt to Move Root

Le duodi 2 nivôse, an CCXXIV, Sven Hartge a écrit : > And this is why I love the GPT. There is a defined space for the > bootloader to be and no nether region of swirly unknowness between the > MBR and the start of the first partition. The UEFI boot system is indeed a great improvement, or would

Re: Attempt to Move Root (SOLVED!!)

On reboot (to old system or otherwise), the UUID of the target partition was CHANGED! If the problem was not hidden behind a screenfull of lvm errors, I would/should have seen that right away, huh?

Re: Attempt to Move Root

Nicolas George wrote: > Le duodi 2 nivôse, an CCXXIV, John Hasler a écrit : >> Think about multiboot home user systems. > Multiboot or no multiboot, once the system(s) is/are installed, nobody > writes outside the partitions. In ye olde days (pre-Windowsm 98) some programs (I

Re: Attempt to Move Root

Le duodi 2 nivôse, an CCXXIV, John Hasler a écrit : > Think about multiboot home user systems. Multiboot or no multiboot, once the system(s) is/are installed, nobody writes outside the partitions. Regards, -- Nicolas George signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Attempt to Move Root

Nicolas George wrote: > Le duodi 2 nivôse, an CCXXIV, Sven Hartge a écrit : >> In ye olde days (pre-Windowsm 98) some programs (I think Photoshop >> did it.) wrote licence data into that space, because it was unused. >> The copy protection scheme of some games also tried to hide

Re: Attempt to Move Root

I wrote: > "Unused" is the problem with this design. The space is unused on by > accident. There is no standard (even an informal one) that reserves it. Nicolas George writes: > This is theoretical. In practice, it works pretty well, because people > (at least competent sysadmins and authors of

Re: Attempt to Move Root

On Tue 22 Dec 2015 at 20:44:31 +0100, Sven Hartge wrote: > Nicolas George wrote: > > Le duodi 2 nivôse, an CCXXIV, John Hasler a écrit : > >> Think about multiboot home user systems. > > > Multiboot or no multiboot, once the system(s) is/are installed, nobody > > writes outside

Re: Attempt to Move Root

Le duodi 2 nivôse, an CCXXIV, Sven Hartge a écrit : > In ye olde days (pre-Windowsm 98) some programs (I think Photoshop did > it.) wrote licence data into that space, because it was unused. The copy > protection scheme of some games also tried to hide information there. > > So "nobody" is not

Re: Attempt to Move Root

On Tue 22 Dec 2015 at 23:05:54 +0100, Nicolas George wrote: > Le duodi 2 nivôse, an CCXXIV, Sven Hartge a écrit : > > In ye olde days (pre-Windowsm 98) some programs (I think Photoshop did > > it.) wrote licence data into that space, because it was unused. The copy > > protection scheme of some

Re: Attempt to Move Root

Le primidi 1er nivôse, an CCXXIV, Stephen Powell a écrit : > No, that won't work. If the root filesystem is an LVM2 logical volume, then > /boot *cannot* be part of the root filesystem. To be more rigorous, there > will > be a /boot directory in the / filesystem, but it must be an *empty*

Re: Attempt to Move Root

Le duodi 2 nivôse, an CCXXIV, John Hasler a écrit : > "Unused" is the problem with this design. The space is unused on by > accident. There is no standard (even an informal one) that reserves it. This is theoretical. In practice, it works pretty well, because people (at least competent

Re: Attempt to Move Root

Nicolas George writes: > To avoid troubles with filesystems, GRUB tries to put its second stage > in the unused space between the partition table and the boot-sector. "Unused" is the problem with this design. The space is unused on by accident. There is no standard (even an informal one) that

Re: Attempt to Move Root

On 12/21/2015 01:50 AM, David Baron wrote: On Monday 21 December 2015 00:50:43 David Christensen wrote: On 12/20/2015 03:36 AM, David Baron wrote: my goal is to remove and older 80gig IDE disk from the system Debian version? Sid What drive is root on? How is the drive partitioned? RAID?

Re: Attempt to Move Root

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 10:36:48 -0500 (EST), David Baron wrote: > > On Monday 21 December 2015 10:25:15 Stephen Powell wrote: >> >> Obviously, the LILO map file is on the IDE drive. Is your /boot partition >> on the IDE drive? If so, you cannot remove it. The /boot partition must >> be a

Re: Attempt to Move Root

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 10:31:54 -0500 (EST), Lisi Reisz wrote: > > Could he not dd them onto another drive? > ... He can copy the /boot data to another drive, not necessarily with dd. In fact, if he wants to be able to remove the existing IDE drive, he must. But he cannot copy it to an LVM2

Re: Attempt to Move Root

On Monday 21 December 2015 14:53:16 Stephen Powell wrote: > On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 10:36:48 -0500 (EST), David Baron wrote: > > On Monday 21 December 2015 10:25:15 Stephen Powell wrote: > >> Obviously, the LILO map file is on the IDE drive. Is your /boot > >> partition > >> on the IDE drive? If so,

Re: Attempt to Move Root

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 15:43:54 -0500 (EST), David Baron wrote: > > Repeat: NO LV's Oh. Sorry. Looking back over the thread, I guess I got the idea from Anders Andersson that you were using LVM2 logical volumes. My mistake. Yes, if / is a partition on a real disk, then /boot can be part of

Re: Attempt to Move Root

On 12/20/2015 02:58 AM, David Baron wrote: So ... how do I do this?? On 12/20/2015 03:36 AM, David Baron wrote: > my goal is to remove and older 80gig IDE disk from the system Debian version? What drive is root on? How is the drive partitioned? RAID? LVM? LUKS? Other? What is the file

Re: Attempt to Move Root

On Monday 21 December 2015 00:50:43 David Christensen wrote: > On 12/20/2015 02:58 AM, David Baron wrote: > > So ... how do I do this?? > > On 12/20/2015 03:36 AM, David Baron wrote: > > my goal is to remove and older 80gig IDE disk from the system > > Debian version? Sid > > > What drive is

Re: Attempt to Move Root

On Monday 21 December 2015 16:15:48 Stephen Powell wrote: > On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 15:43:54 -0500 (EST), David Baron wrote: > > Repeat: NO LV's > > Oh. Sorry. Looking back over the thread, I guess I got the idea from > Anders Andersson that you were using LVM2 logical volumes. My mistake. > Yes,

Re: Attempt to Move Root

On Monday 21 December 2015 15:25:15 Stephen Powell wrote: > On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 04:50:00 -0500 (EST), David Baron wrote: > > Went through all the motions, both ways: On native and chroot. Results > > were the same. Get in that loop of lv not ready messages. Difference: > > Native attempt still

Re: Attempt to Move Root

On Monday 21 December 2015 10:25:15 Stephen Powell wrote: > On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 04:50:00 -0500 (EST), David Baron wrote: > > Went through all the motions, both ways: On native and chroot. Results > > were > > the same. Get in that loop of lv not ready messages. Difference: Native > > attempt

Re: Attempt to Move Root

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 04:50:00 -0500 (EST), David Baron wrote: > > Went through all the motions, both ways: On native and chroot. Results were > the same. Get in that loop of lv not ready messages. Difference: Native > attempt still needs the IDE plugged in or I get 99 99 99 ... , chroot does

Re: Attempt to Move Root

On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 15:51:22 -0500 (EST), David Baron wrote: > > So ... do I need the chroot and the binds and all this at all? That's the recommended way. Make sure that the edited copies of /etc/lilo.conf, /etc/fstab, and /etc/initramfs-tools/conf.d/resume, in the chrooted environment, all

Attempt to Move Root

OK, mounted newrootpartition newroot Did a cp -x / newroot Successful so far, elementary Edited newroot/etc/fstab and newroot/etc/lilo.conf to point root to newrootpartition (by uuid) mount --bind /dev newroot/dev mount --bind /proc newroot/proc as instructed in various posts, to enable lilo

Re: Attempt to Move Root

On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 05:58:47 -0500 (EST), David Baron wrote: > > OK, mounted newrootpartition newroot > Did a cp -x / newroot > Successful so far, elementary > > Edited newroot/etc/fstab and newroot/etc/lilo.conf to point root to > newrootpartition (by uuid) > > mount --bind /dev newroot/dev

Re: Attempt to Move Root

On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 12:58:47 +0200 David Baron wrote: > Edited newroot/etc/fstab and newroot/etc/lilo.conf to point root to > newrootpartition (by uuid) Have you tried getting rid of the UUID crap in both newroot/etc/fstab and newroot/etc/lilo.conf, and mount them the old

Re: Attempt to Move Root

On Sunday 20 December 2015 08:07:31 Renaud OLGIATI wrote: > On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 12:58:47 +0200 > > David Baron wrote: > > Edited newroot/etc/fstab and newroot/etc/lilo.conf to point root to > > newrootpartition (by uuid) > > Have you tried getting rid of the UUID crap in

Re: Attempt to Move Root

>> David Baron wrote: >> > Edited newroot/etc/fstab and newroot/etc/lilo.conf to point root to >> > newrootpartition (by uuid) >> >> Have you tried getting rid of the UUID crap in both newroot/etc/fstab and >> newroot/etc/lilo.conf, and mount them the old way, as

Re: Attempt to Move Root

On Sunday 20 December 2015 11:36:18 David Baron wrote: > On Sunday 20 December 2015 08:07:31 Renaud OLGIATI wrote: > > On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 12:58:47 +0200 > > > > David Baron wrote: > > > Edited newroot/etc/fstab and newroot/etc/lilo.conf to point root to > > > newrootpartition

Re: Attempt to Move Root

On Sunday 20 December 2015 13:18:09 Stephen Powell wrote: > On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 05:58:47 -0500 (EST), David Baron wrote: > > OK, mounted newrootpartition newroot > > Did a cp -x / newroot > > Successful so far, elementary > > > > Edited newroot/etc/fstab and newroot/etc/lilo.conf to point root