possible problem with new boot loader ?

1999-01-17 Thread Ulf Zimmermann
Not sure if I am just to stupid or if this is a bug. My system has 2 IDE drives and then several SCSI drives. FreeBSD is on the first scsi drive, so da0. Root is da0s1a. Bios sees the drive as the 3. When the new boot loader comes up with no /boot.config, it prints 2:da(2,a)/boot/loader, which

Re: possible problem with new boot loader ?

1999-01-17 Thread Robert Nordier
Ulf Zimmermann wrote: Not sure if I am just to stupid or if this is a bug. My system has 2 IDE drives and then several SCSI drives. FreeBSD is on the first scsi drive, so da0. Root is da0s1a. Bios sees the drive as the 3. When the new boot loader comes up with no /boot.config, it prints

Re: possible problem with new boot loader ?

1999-01-17 Thread Ulf Zimmermann
On Sun, Jan 17, 1999 at 06:29:30PM +0200, Robert Nordier wrote: Ulf Zimmermann wrote: Not sure if I am just to stupid or if this is a bug. My system has 2 IDE drives and then several SCSI drives. FreeBSD is on the first scsi drive, so da0. Root is da0s1a. Bios sees the drive as the 3.

Re: possible problem with new boot loader ?

1999-01-17 Thread Mike Smith
There are two issues here: o The bootblocks get the SCSI unit number wrong in cases where IDE drives are also attached. This is to be expected. There is just insufficient space available to the bootblocks for smarter logic. The old bootblocks

Re: possible problem with new boot loader ?

1999-01-17 Thread Ulf Zimmermann
On Sun, Jan 17, 1999 at 06:29:30PM +0200, Robert Nordier wrote: Ulf Zimmermann wrote: Not sure if I am just to stupid or if this is a bug. My system has 2 IDE drives and then several SCSI drives. FreeBSD is on the first scsi drive, so da0. Root is da0s1a. Bios sees the drive as the 3.

Re: possible problem with new boot loader ?

1999-01-17 Thread Ulf Zimmermann
On Sun, Jan 17, 1999 at 01:36:12PM -0800, Mike Smith wrote: There are two issues here: o The bootblocks get the SCSI unit number wrong in cases where IDE drives are also attached. This is to be expected. There is just insufficient space available

Re: possible problem with new boot loader ?

1999-01-17 Thread Mike Smith
On Sun, Jan 17, 1999 at 01:36:12PM -0800, Mike Smith wrote: There are two issues here: o The bootblocks get the SCSI unit number wrong in cases where IDE drives are also attached. This is to be expected. There is just insufficient space

Re: possible problem with new boot loader ?

1999-01-17 Thread Ulf Zimmermann
On Sun, Jan 17, 1999 at 01:57:20PM -0800, Mike Smith wrote: On Sun, Jan 17, 1999 at 01:36:12PM -0800, Mike Smith wrote: There are two issues here: o The bootblocks get the SCSI unit number wrong in cases where IDE drives are also attached. This

Re: possible problem with new boot loader ?

1999-01-17 Thread Robert Nordier
Ulf Zimmermann wrote: On Sun, Jan 17, 1999 at 06:29:30PM +0200, Robert Nordier wrote: Ulf Zimmermann wrote: Incidentally, do these bootblocks contain the BTX patch I sent you, or did you find some other way around that problem? This are the boot loaders from last night, just after make

Re: possible problem with new boot loader ?

1999-01-17 Thread Mike Smith
You need 'set num_ide_disks=2' The variable's somewhat misnamed, and I'm still groping for an algorithm that'll get it more or less right without screwing the pooch should we ever improve the root mount detection in the kernel. Set that where? At the disk1s1a: prompt

Re: possible problem with new boot loader ?

1999-01-17 Thread Robert Nordier
Ulf Zimmermann wrote: On Sun, Jan 17, 1999 at 06:29:30PM +0200, Robert Nordier wrote: Ulf Zimmermann wrote: The old bootblocks have a build setting BOOT_HD_BIAS to work around this problem. The new bootblocks rely on /boot.config. You can have 2:da(0,a)