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

Problem mounting netboot image by hostname

I'm trying to build a netboot image, and I'm unable to mount the root fs.
The host system is Debian Sid, and I'm building a netboot image using the default distribution (Squeeze, I believe.)
The live system is configured to mount the root fs from a CIFS share. However, during boot, I get the following error:
Begin: Trying netboot from //proxy/root-images/ ... Begin: Trying mount.cifs //proxy/root-images/ /live/image -ouser=root,password= ... mount error: could not resolve address for proxy: Name or service not known
Begin: Trying nfsmount -o nolock -o ro //proxy/root-images/ /live/image .. nfsmount: need a server
nfsmount: need a server
"nfsmount: need a server" repeats several times until I'm eventually kicked out to the busybox shell.
From there, I try to ping the server:
(initramfs) ping proxy
ping: bad address 'proxy'
Wget doesn't work either:
(initramfs) wget http://www.sd28.bc.ca
wget: bad address 'www.sd28.bc.ca'
(initramfs) /bin/wget http://www.sd28.bc.ca
Resolving www.sd28.bc.ca... failed: Name or service no known.
wget: unable to resolve host address 'www.sd28.bc.ca'
I checked the /etc/resolv.conf in the initramfs and the information is present and correct.
If I modify my pxeboot configuration and change the hostname "proxy" to the IP address, the initramfs is able to mount the root fs and the boot continues normally. However, this isn't an optimal solution for me.
I've looked on the web for more information, but all I can find is an old bug report (http://bugs.debian.org/589659) from July 2010 which has been fixed and closed, and some information from Clonezilla.org (http://clonezilla.org/clonezilla-live/live-initramfs-param.php) which indicates that there's a limitation in busybox that prevents DNS resolution. I do not know how old this information is, but judging by the version numbers, it's from Lenny.
So, my question is, have I missed a step, or is this a bug?
Thanks in advance,
Mike Alborn.

Reply to: