----- Forwarded message from Kurt Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----- Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 09:47:02 +1100 From: Kurt Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Bug#348998: Hard drive detection failure
Christian Perrier wrote: >>The DVD is labelled as: Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 r0a "Sarge" - Official >>amd64 Binary-1 >>There is no visible version number when installing and there does not >>appear to be a version number list on the DVD. >> >> > >OK, this is enough for us. So this is a sarge DVD. > >When sarge when out, the world of SATA was unfortunately crazy and it >doesn't support numerous SATA controllers with the 2.6.8 kernel it >uses. > >However, your logs seem to show that the disk is actually detected, >fro mwhat I see but anyway: > >You might have a better chance with the Etch installer beta1 images >which you will find on http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer > >Please report if this suceeds detecting your hard disk. > >This version can still install sarge, but there's not guarantee that >the installed sarge system (which will use the sarge kernel) will work >as it will use the 2.6.8 kernel. > >So, you might have really better chances installing Debian "testing" >on this system. > >If Etch beta1 still doesn't detect your HD, then you'll need to use the >daily >builds which you will find from the above page. They are what will be >the Etch beta2 installer, due out in the next weeks. > >And, finally, if your HD is still not detected by one of the dailies, >or does not show up properly in partman, then you can apply what I >suggested: > > > > >>>Please switch to the second console (Alt+F2), hit Enter to open a >>>shell and run the following command: >>> >>>(lspci ; lspci -n)|sort >>> >>> >>> >>> >>/bin/sh: lspci: not found >>/bin/sh: lspci: not found >> >> > > >Yes, sarge images didn't have lspci...it's only in the daily builds. > > > >>I'm wondering if it might be due to the size of the HDDs, I know early >>(pre sp1) WinXP could not handle disks larger than 136GB. Also, after I >>disable the drives under BIOS, when I redetect them they initially show >>up as 136GB, I have to detect them a second time to get the correct size >>of 232GB. >> >> > >That could be a reason, yes. The partman log with the recent builds >could be helpful. > > > > > > > Thanks for your quick reply on this issue, all things considered I think I'll wait for the next version to be released. As I'm only after a copy of Linux to get a feel for the OS, it's not like I'm in any rush. I am reminded of an online Unix purity test I saw once, one of the rather tongue in cheek questions sticks in the mind "Name the 3 letters that can NOT be used as modifiers to the ls command". Thanks again, -- Kurt-theBeast-Frank, who swears that he will "Get-A-Life" just as soon as it can be mathematically proven to be better than what he has now. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]