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

Re: Hang during install to SATA



Joey Hess wrote:
> Paul Gear wrote:
> 
>>I'm still trying my hardest to migrate to Debian from Red Hat, and so i
>>bought two new Western Digital 200 Gb SATA hard disks.  My goal is to
>>set them up as a software RAID 1 set.  Unfortunately, i've had two
>>problems so far.
>>
>>Firstly, it doesn't seem possible to use the partitioning scheme i'd
>>prefer, which is a small (e.g. 200-500 Mb) /boot, largish (e.g. 4 Gb)
>>swap, and the remainder of the drive in /.  (This is the scheme that's
>>always worked well for me under Red Hat/Fedora.)  Is that correct?
> 
> 
> I don't understand why you'd think that is impossible. Choose "manual
> partitioning" and you have complete control over how the partition table
> is set up.

I've used manual install every time.  I read in this list's archives
some discussion about the kernel being put in / rather than /boot, and
spoken to a couple of friends who already use Debian and the consensus
was that it was possible, but probably not supported by the installer.
That's why i asked the question.

>>Secondly, whenever i try to set up RAID devices, as soon as the first
>>one is made, the system hangs.  It's not that it's just slow because
>>it's syncing the mirror - its actually hung.  Switching VCs doesn't
>>work, neither does caps/num lock.  It locks up *hard*.
>>...
> Are you booting the 2.4 or the 2.6 kernel? If you've not already tried
> it, boot with "linux26" using the daily snapshot. Perhaps the newer
> kernel in there will not have the same problem.

I've chosen both, but 2.4 doesn't even get as far as 2.6 before it locks
up.  I'm fairly confident it is some sort of kernel/driver issue,
because, as i said, Fedora Core 2 installs and runs fine (although i had
to boot from rescue disk and install LILO to get it to boot, due to poor
grub support for my chipset/BIOS/drives/whatever).

-- 
Paul
<http://paulgear.webhop.net>
--
Did you know?  Microsoft Internet Explorer and Outlook have a poor track
record for security <http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/713878>.  Why not
try one of the more secure alternatives from <http://www.mozilla.org>?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: