[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: grub SATA netinstall problem



On Monday 21 March 2005 11:54 pm, John Baab wrote:
> I am looking for some help with a netinstall grub problem.
>
> I am trying to install via the 2/20/05 sarge netinstall.  The
> installation goes fine, but upon reboot I am getting "error loading
> operating system"  I have taken notice that durring the grub
> installation step, grub is installed to /dev/hda0, which is my
> secondary hard drive on my primary IDE controller.  Durring the
> partition steps I choose my partitions on /dev/sda0.  If I remove the
> IDE hard drive and install everything goes fine and I can boot the
> system, but upon hooking the IDE hard drive back up my system will no
> longer boot because my debian system is not located at (hd0,0).. How
> can I fix the net install so grub is installed to the mbr of my SATA
> drive and not my IDE drive?  Should this hard deive not be hooked up
> to my primary IDE controller?  I have an open raid controller that it
> can be hooked into instead,  If I remember correctly (its been a while
> since I did my last windows install) in order to get my SATA hard
> drive to be listed as the c: I had to install windows to it and add
> the IDE hard drive later.  Any help would be appreciated, thanks.
>
> P.S. my motherboard is an Asus K8V SE Deluxe.
> -John

John,

I've never had to do this, personally, but I've read this in the GRUB manual 
and it sounds like the solution to your problem:

> 13.3.23 map 
> 
> Command: map to_drive from_drive 
> Map the drive from_drive to the drive to_drive. This is necessary when you 
chain-load some operating systems, such as DOS, if such an OS resides at a 
non-first drive. Here is an example: 
>  
> grub> map (hd0) (hd1)
> grub> map (hd1) (hd0)
> 
>  The example exchanges the order between the first hard disk and the second 
hard disk. See also 4.2.6 DOS/Windows. 

cmr
-- 
Debian 'Sarge': Registered Linux User #241964
----
"More laws, less justice." -- Marcus Tullius Ciceroca, 42 BC
--------



Reply to: