Re: Fwd: Do others see install failures on DNS-323 to ext2 FS from Debian 7.0 netboot.img?
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com> wrote:
> I finally had time to look into this issue. I summarized what I found
> in a bug report: http://bugs.debian.org/729445
What a clear and simple report -- thanks, Martin!
>> (Ext2 seems to be the only linux-native FS available in the installer.)
>
> I wonder why you say that.
>
> That's something I never understood about the several reports I
> received from other users about this problem. Why do they use ext2
> for the root partition? By default, the installer should use ext3,
> but for some reason it must be ext2 on the DNS-323. I'm not sure why
> and I'm not around my ARM devices at the moment to check. But this is
> definitely another issue since ext2 should *not* be the default for
> the root partition (only for /boot).
Yes. I can only speak for my colleague and myself; we saw only ext2
and several FAT-related choices when we ran d-i and chose to use its
partitioning UI. I don't know why ext3 et al. were not on the menu.
Of course, d-i is running in 64 MB of RAM in this case. Two
possibilities occur to me: 1) the installer is ignoring more
memory-intensive partitioning options right away 2) the installer
looks at disk size and estimates how much RAM it will need, and then
offers partitioning options it can support.
A google for "Memory allocation failed while setting up superblock"
shows (with only RAM <192 MB, no swap) some examples of the kind of
problem d-i might be seeking to avoid by offering ext2 only. I
apologize for speculating without reading the source.
The disk I was installing on was 2 TB. When I have time, I shall try
the same install on a 250 GB disk and report.
I am very grateful for the help, Martin, and for any opinions from the list.
--
tai@eastpole.ca :::: East Pole Productions
Reply to: