> DL> "/boot=/dev/md?" line which was suggested in an earlier thread? I
> DL> don't see how this works. Going back to Dirk Lutzebaeck's problem
> DL> with this, he used "boot=/dev/md0". /dev/md0 is a mirror of
> DL> /dev/sda1 and /dev/sdb1. Why then does lilo try to install to
> DL> /dev/sda and /dev/sdb, not to /dev/sda1 and /dev/sdb1?
>
> because the system doesn't boot off of the first partition, it boots off
> of the boot block on the disk (ie: the first part of /dev/sd[ab]). ie:
> lilo is trying to be smart about this.
But it isn't smart, it's dumb. Let's take an example: a dual-boot system with
Windows (or whatever) on the first disk, and Linux on an array on the second and
third disks. If I use this (RedHat's?) system, I will end up with lilo on the
MBR of the second disk, when I actually want it on the MBR of the first disk,
even though I have no linux filesystem on that disk.
This is too much second-guessing by RedHat/lilo, and the assumptions are not
safe. We should stick to giving lilo the device on which we want it to install,
and not ask it to guess. The raid-1 patch to lilo should simply enable it to
translate the locations of the essential system files on the array from their
logical position on the array to their physical position on one of the disks.
Cheers,
Bruno Prior [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Theo Van Dinter
> Sent: 22 November 1999 18:10
> To: Dirk Lutzebaeck
> Cc: Linux-Raid
> Subject: RE: Booting from raid1 - halfway only
>
>
> On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Dirk Lutzebaeck wrote:
>
> DL> "/boot=/dev/md?" line which was suggested in an earlier thread? I
> DL> don't see how this works. Going back to Dirk Lutzebaeck's problem
> DL> with this, he used "boot=/dev/md0". /dev/md0 is a mirror of
> DL> /dev/sda1 and /dev/sdb1. Why then does lilo try to install to
> DL> /dev/sda and /dev/sdb, not to /dev/sda1 and /dev/sdb1?
>
> because the system doesn't boot off of the first partition, it boots off
> of the boot block on the disk (ie: the first part of /dev/sd[ab]). ie:
> lilo is trying to be smart about this.
>
> (on an aside: I wonder if this would also work with a RAID-[45] array...
> if one disk fails, it could still boot in degraded mode. have to try it
> one of these days.)
>
> --
> Randomly Generated Tagline:
> quit When the quit statement is read, the bc processor
> is terminated, regardless of where the quit state-
> ment is found. For example, "if (0 == 1) quit"
> will cause bc to terminate.
> (Seen in the manpage for "bc". Note the "if" statement's logic)
>
>
>
