Bug#348998: (forw) Re: Bug#348998: Hard drive detection failure
----- Forwarded message from Kurt Frank <kurt-666-frank@optusnet.com.au> -----
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 09:47:02 +1100
From: Kurt Frank <kurt-666-frank@optusnet.com.au>
To: Christian Perrier <bubulle@debian.org>
Subject: Re: Bug#348998: Hard drive detection failure
Christian Perrier wrote:
>>The DVD is labelled as: Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 r0a "Sarge" - Official
>>amd64 Binary-1
>>There is no visible version number when installing and there does not
>>appear to be a version number list on the DVD.
>>
>>
>
>OK, this is enough for us. So this is a sarge DVD.
>
>When sarge when out, the world of SATA was unfortunately crazy and it
>doesn't support numerous SATA controllers with the 2.6.8 kernel it
>uses.
>
>However, your logs seem to show that the disk is actually detected,
>fro mwhat I see but anyway:
>
>You might have a better chance with the Etch installer beta1 images
>which you will find on http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer
>
>Please report if this suceeds detecting your hard disk.
>
>This version can still install sarge, but there's not guarantee that
>the installed sarge system (which will use the sarge kernel) will work
>as it will use the 2.6.8 kernel.
>
>So, you might have really better chances installing Debian "testing"
>on this system.
>
>If Etch beta1 still doesn't detect your HD, then you'll need to use the
>daily
>builds which you will find from the above page. They are what will be
>the Etch beta2 installer, due out in the next weeks.
>
>And, finally, if your HD is still not detected by one of the dailies,
>or does not show up properly in partman, then you can apply what I
>suggested:
>
>
>
>
>>>Please switch to the second console (Alt+F2), hit Enter to open a
>>>shell and run the following command:
>>>
>>>(lspci ; lspci -n)|sort
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>/bin/sh: lspci: not found
>>/bin/sh: lspci: not found
>>
>>
>
>
>Yes, sarge images didn't have lspci...it's only in the daily builds.
>
>
>
>>I'm wondering if it might be due to the size of the HDDs, I know early
>>(pre sp1) WinXP could not handle disks larger than 136GB. Also, after I
>>disable the drives under BIOS, when I redetect them they initially show
>>up as 136GB, I have to detect them a second time to get the correct size
>>of 232GB.
>>
>>
>
>That could be a reason, yes. The partman log with the recent builds
>could be helpful.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Thanks for your quick reply on this issue, all things considered I think
I'll wait for the next version to be released. As I'm only after a copy
of Linux to get a feel for the OS, it's not like I'm in any rush. I am
reminded of an online Unix purity test I saw once, one of the rather
tongue in cheek questions sticks in the mind "Name the 3 letters that
can NOT be used as modifiers to the ls command".
Thanks again,
--
Kurt-theBeast-Frank, who swears that he will "Get-A-Life" just as soon as it
can be mathematically proven to be better than what he has now.
----- End forwarded message -----
--
Reply to: