 |
|
 |
|
Next: [PATCH 2/6] cpumask: avoid playing with cpus_allo..
|
| Author |
Message |
External

Since: May 23, 2006 Posts: 24
|
(Msg. 16) Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:20 pm
Post subject: Re: Mystery: Why did an old system stop working? [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: comp>os>linux>hardware (more info?)
|
|
|
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:33:28 +0000, Andrew Gideon wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:56:44 +0000, Andrew Gideon wrote:
>
>> I'm going to next try Fedora 4 to confirm that it fails as I remember
>> it.
>
> Fedora 4 works. So there's some "breaking point" between this and
> CentOS 5. Now to find it...
Well, that was easy: Fedora 5 doesn't work.
In one of the separate consoles, the last thing Fedora 5 displays during
the install is that device mapper is initialized. Fedora 4 displays
this, and then displays:
<6>parport: PnPBIOS parport detected.
<6>parport0: PC-style at 0x378 (0x778), irq 7 [PCSPP,TRISTATE,EPP]
So: Any thoughts or ideas at what might be "wrong" with this old system
such that Fedora 4 installs but Fedora 5 (plus at least some later
versions of Fedora and CentOS 5) don't?
Reminder: All works well when there's only a single drive. But when
there are two drives, the above failure scenario occurs. It doesn't seem
to matter if the two drives are master and slave or two masters on the
two IDE channels on the motherboard.
- Andrew |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: May 23, 2006 Posts: 24
|
(Msg. 17) Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:20 pm
Post subject: Re: Mystery: Why did an old system stop working? [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:54:07 +0000, Andrew Gideon wrote:
> So: Any thoughts or ideas at what might be "wrong" with this old system
> such that Fedora 4 installs but Fedora 5 (plus at least some later
> versions of Fedora and CentOS 5) don't?
>
> Reminder: All works well when there's only a single drive. But when
> there are two drives, the above failure scenario occurs. It doesn't
> seem to matter if the two drives are master and slave or two masters on
> the two IDE channels on the motherboard.
I've tried appending to the Fedora 5 kernel line:
lp=0 pnpbios=off pnpacpi=off noapic noacpi
but there was no change.
Thanks...
- Andrew |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: May 23, 2006 Posts: 24
|
(Msg. 18) Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 3:20 pm
Post subject: SOLVED (but not quite sure why): Mystery: Why did an old system [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
There was another oddity - at least as far as I'm concerned - that took
me in an interesting direction.
When I do install with a single drive (which works, recall), it's not
called /dev/hda but instead /dev/mapper/pdc_fhhdihgb. Shifting to the
console window with a prompt (ie. console 2 during the install), I can
operate upon /dev/hda (ie. running fdisk by hand). But if I boot using a
kickstart script that refers to /dev/hda, it fails with a "device not
present" error.
This suggested an issue with dmraid.
I confirmed not only that the BIOS didn't have any RAID enabled, but that
this BIOS didn't have the *capability* for RAID.
I tried dmraid -rE on the drive to see if this made a difference.
Perhaps somehow there was some metainformation there? There was, but
doing this made no difference. The installation process was adding the
dmraid information even if it hadn't been there before.
The next logical thing to try was to append the kernel option "nodmraid"
during the installation. This made the odd name go away; the installer
tried to use /dev/hda. And when I reenabled the other three drives, I
was finally able to complete an installation on all four.
So I now have this [old] system working. But what happened? What
changed between Fedora 4 and Fedora 5 that caused this problem?
Thanks...
Andrew |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
|
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|