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

Woody root on RAID and 2.4.17



Hi,

Has anyone successfully built a woody system with root fs on software
RAID and kernel 2.4 ?

I am running several installations of potato with root fs on RAID and
kernel 2.2.19 with the raid-a1 patch, but my attempts to build one with
woody and kernel version 2.4.17 have failed so far.

I've searched the web quith thoroughly but have failed to locate an
indication that to build root fs on RAID with 2.4, a different strategy
must be followed to the one used with the 2.2 kernels and the "new"
RAID patches.

When booting, lilo fails with either L<nothing> or L 01 01 01 01 01...  I
have tried both "lba32" and "linear" in lilo.conf without result.

I am following the same method as I used successfully with potato and
kernel 2.2.19:

- Root fs on /dev/md2 (RAID-1) (sda2+sdb2)

- /boot in /dev/md1 (RAID-1) (sda2+sdb2)

Included in lilo.conf:

# The root fs device
disk=/dev/md2

	# Geometry obtained by fdisk -ul
	cylinders=8704
	heads=64
	sectors=32

	# We will use the SCSI bios to choose which MBR to boot from;
	# in which case it will be assigned BIOS ID 0x80
	bios=0x80

	# The /boot device, as a partition of the root device; this is
	# a trick to tell lilo where to look for the /boot data.
	partition=/dev/md1

		# The sector the /boot device starts from
		# (first sector of one of the partitions in the array
		# /dev/md1, i.e. /dev/sda1 or /dev/sdb1; life is easier
		# if they are both the same).
		start=32

# The MBR we will actually be installing to.  We can change this
# to /dev/sdb and rul lilo again so we can boot from either disk.
boot=/dev/sda

# The root device
root=/dev/md2

<remainder of lilo.conf is fairly standard>

Any ideas?


|      George Karaolides       8, Costakis Pantelides St.,         |
|      tel:   +357 99 68 08 86                  Strovolos,         |
|      email: george@karaolides.com       Nicosia CY 2057,         |
|      web:   www.karaolides.com      Republic  of Cyprus          |




Reply to: