Re: spontaneous partitions type changes (GRUB)
Thank you . You were right removing the hide/unhide commands from the linux partition did the job.
bt
On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 06:52:42PM -0500, D-Man wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 03:14:57PM +0100, Carel Fellinger wrote:
> | Hi Balbir,
> |
> | On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 02:31:02PM -0500, Balbir Thomas wrote:
> | > Hi,
> | > I have installed dos, win98 and debian on my system using GRUB as
> | > the bootloader. The installation was ok. But every time I boot
>
> Good choice of bootloader's if I may say so ;-).
>
> | > into windows or dos and try to boot back into linux I get the
> | > Stage 2 error 17, that the info documentations says is due to an
> | > unrecogized partitions type. When I check the partition type in
> | > linux using cfdisk , it is reported as being of type "amoeba". I
> | > change its type to linux ext2 and write it to disk (Without losing
> | > any data on the disk) and the error repeats if I boot into win or
> | > dos.
> |
> | I'm not much of a guru, but I suspect that in your GRUB config file ( see
> | /etc/boot/grub/menu.lst ) you'll find a "hide" command for the linux parti-
> | tion, but no corresponding "unhide" command in the linux section itself.
>
> I saw different symptons when I tried hiding the linux partitions from
> win2k, then not unhiding them from linux. The partition table wasn't
> messed up at all, I just couldn't boot because the partition didn't
> exist. (That's what hiding does, it makes the partition SEEM to not
> exist)
>
> When I unhid the partitions it was fine. Actually, I could still see
> the linux partions in win2k (though the disks had weird properties and
> didn't function, as expected). As a result I just removed all the
> hide/unhide commands.
>
> Actually, on this system I was using grub from a floppy disk. I
> didn't want to overwrite the MBR since it is a company machine. At
> home I was pleasantly surprised to see grub able to boot linux when I
> installed it on the MBR (lilo couldn't). I haven't had any trouble
> with it, but I don't have plain DOS installed. Also, at home it is 2
> separate disks. The hide/unhide didn't seem to have any effect.
> (Better, IMO than simply failing to boot since apparently my BIOS
> doesn't support it)
>
> -D
>
Reply to: