On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 05:27:43PM -0500, Arnie Stender wrote: > root:/# hexdump -C -n 512 /dev/sdb > 00000000 fa eb 31 12 00 00 4c 49 4c 4f 16 07 10 00 01 00 |�1...LILO......| > 00000010 00 7c 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 5e ac 08 c0 > |.|..........^�.� > 00000020 74 09 b4 0e bb 07 00 cd 10 eb f2 b9 13 00 b4 86 > |t.�.�..���..�.| > > This by the way is coming from running the chroot environment from the > book. LFS is on /dev/sdb. /boot is on it's own partition /dev/sdb1. / is > on /dev/sdb2. Another BTW, in the hexdump output I see the error message > that I have been getting. This is the first time I have been sure that > LILO was putting that up. There was always a chance in my mind that it > was coming from the BIOS. The answer to question 1 is just above. The > fact that I am trying to switch the cables should mean that when I am > actually trying to boot it should be seen as sda not sdb.
I was missing that you swapped the cable. So, you have installed lilo onto the disk while it is at /dev/sdb. > Question 3: My lilo.conf file looks like this: > root:/# cat /etc/lilo.conf > # Begin /etc/lilo.conf > # lilo.conf > # > # global options > boot=/dev/sda To me, this is telling lilo to write the bootblock to the disk at sda - I don't understand how you managed to put this onto the correct disk from within chroot. I would expect that lilo would overwrite the mbr on the disk conected at sda (the FC5 drive) I would also expect that when you boot FC5 is uses grub ? Because you swap the disk from sdb to sda, this sounds like the situation I referred to yesterday where disk= and bios= were used, but I note that the current manpage says that the bios= option is now largely obsolete. I'm hesitant to advise how to procede, because your results are not what I expect, and I don't want to do anything that will overwrite the FC5 bootloader. You say you "swap" the cables - have you tried booting with ONLY the clfs drive connected ? > > I did note that our hexdump started out the same but only in the first > two bytes. I did a google for a sub-string of the error message 'boot > signature' and it came back with a link to a page that said the > "signature" was for an x86 system "It then checks the sector for a valid > boot signature (the last two bytes must be 55AAh).". The last two bytes > being the last two in the boot block. Mine in fact are 55AAh although I > am running pure 64 on an AMD64 Athlon. Like I said before I am out if > ideas. What are your next thoughts? I have no real interest in the contents of the boot block, other than to confirm it has the LILO signature! Yes, the bootblock, just like grub's, is x86 code - all x86_64 processors start up in legacy mode. Ken -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce _______________________________________________ Clfs-support mailing list [email protected] http://ninja.linux-phreak.biz/mailman/listinfo/clfs-support
