Re: Debian 3.0 on Netra X1, installs but won't run
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 04:05:03AM +1000, Jamie Lenehan wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 09:03:19AM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> > > I just tftpbooted the images from
> > >
> > > http://auric.debian.org/~bcollins/disks-sparc/current/
> > >
> > > The standard boot images would crash while booting.
> > >
> >
> > That's helpful. I found that the stock images were not recognized by
> > the OpenBoot firmware. Not exactly a crash, but neither were they
> > successful.
>
> Oh, the boot image at the above site doesn't support the NIC's on X1.
It didn't even get that far. The firmware downloaded the image and
then said it was invalid.
> I removed the HDD and put it in another machine and loaded the
> basedebs.tar, drivers.tgz, rescue.bin files manually. I then
> tftpbooted the boot disk and installed from the HDD. The extra
> drivers (again from above site) included a tulip driver which does
> work and can be used to install everything else, although it will
> order the NIC's in reverse order, so eth0 is network port 1 and eth1
> is network port 0.
Well that's a bit hardcore. Haven't we gotten past this behavior, yet?
> > because that's where solaris put it. I don't have the machine, so I
> > cannot reprint it here. I know that I only had two partitions, 1 and
> > 3. 1 is most of the disk and 3 has about 1G for swap.
>
> Hmmm... That doesn't make sense. I thought 3 had to be the entire
> disk? If you look at my partition table above 3 is the entire disk,
> so 1, 2 and 4 actually overap with 3.
Why would Linux care about partition three being the whole disk? I
can imagine that Solaris might.
All I did was replace partition three, which was swap on Solaris, with
a Linux swap partition. I then converted the first partition to the
reset of the disk.
> This machine is a:
>
> Sun Netra X1 (UltraSPARC-IIe 400MHz), No Keyboard
> OpenBoot 4.0, 640 MB memory installed, Serial #50737376.
>
> and as of two minutes ago I have it running:
>
> 2.5.70 #3 Sun Jun 15 03:08:48 EST 2003 sparc64 GNU/Linux
That could be part of the problem. I was running linux-2.4.20. The
machine I had was a 500MHz model.
Reply to: