astronomer Posted September 9, 2008 Report Share Posted September 9, 2008 Hello everyone. I am longtime Mandriva user, fan promoter - happy camper! First time to post here though. I have several systems, personal and production, all 'standardized' on Mandriva since Mandrake 7.1. I run 2007 Power Pack on my main systems, except still 2006 on my #1 laptop/development/mobile system. I have decided to change most things to 2009 when it is released and decided to have a first look at it after my brother installed it and said he was suitably impressed. I do not have a free system to dedicate to it at this time, but I have an unused 100GB partition on an HP system that runs 2007 PP. It is also the main repository on my network for local urpmi source, a few apache virtual hosts and my online library. My confidence based on past experience with Mandriva led me to decide to just install to the empty partition and have a quick look... BAD MOVE! The installation went smoothly as far as I could tell, and I used custom disk partitioning to format the unused 100GB space as ext3. At this point I did not notice that it also refered to the device as 'sda' instead of 'hda' - should have been a clue. I was also disappointed that it installed GRUB and did not ask (at least that I noticed) whether to use GRUB or LILO (my favorite). So after it finished I clicked the bootloader configure button and changed it to LILO. At this point I noticed that it did not list the pre-existing 2007 installation... hmmm... I went on to the reboot... which failed with 220.127.116.11.99.99.9.... displayed on my screen! No LILO menu, no nothing! I booted to a rescue CD and had a look around. What had been 'hda' was now apparently 'sda', there was no MBR record as far as I could tell (single 250GB IDE hard drive). It has been a while since I looked closely at disk partitioning - it usually just works - and I do not claim to be expert, so I did some research for a few hours (as my much needed system was down!). What I found was there was no MBR record - 2009 had failed to write one as far as I can tell, even though I had no such indication. I was able to mount my existing partitions using a rescue cd, but the names did not correspond to the lilo.conf or fstab entries in my 2007 filesystem. Everything 'hda' was now 'sda', and I could not easily figure out how to fix that (suggestions or explanation please, anyone?). And when I looked in the 2009 partition at lilo.conf and fstab I got my first introduction to this mess - root="UUID=ddee4f6c-7dac-11dd-90ce-c7961ac25dfa"! I now get the sense that using UUID in lilo and fstab is the default in current kernels - but that has got to be a MISTAKE! I know I can get the UUIDs for devices easily enough, but the complete loss of human readability is a disaster! I routinely edit fstab and lilo.conf to add devices and change configurations on all my systems. Simple, easy, I always know what I have and if I am in question a quick peek answers the question. That is impossible with UUIDs in these critical configs! Please, please, please... rethink this before 2009 is released... Anyway, back to my problem. I was able, after some effort, to restore my MBR from my 2007 lilo.conf and recover to where I was before I started this exercise. I see that the current kernel assigns IDE/ATA devices as 'sda' instead of 'hda', which is not a problem on a single boot system, but sure was a problem in trying to recover to a working system. If anyone can tell me a quick way to do any of the following, would be much appreciated, and certainly of help to more people than just myself who might try to install 2009 to an existing system: 1. Tell the installer to use existing block device names (ie, hda) 2. Tell the installer/ system to NOT use UUID in fstab and lilo.conf (probably other places). 3. Get Grub/Lilo installer to recognize existing boot records. Anyway, I spent an entire afternoon trying to understand and fix this, and consider myself reasonably competent with Linux, Mandriva in particular. I think many people would not have been able to recover to a bootable system without losing existing data. As it is I am none the worse for the experience other than loss of time, but I still do not have a bootable 2009 install. Now I know, this is 'beta', or 'release candidate', but the problems I encountered were not evidently related to a 'bug' or 'problem', this appears to be the way it is going to work. I think that simply not changing device names (hda to sda), or at least warning about it - would be a big help. Giving a choice whether to use UUIDs or human readable device names would sure comfort old-timers like myself! We get a little slow to pick up new fangled ideas at this age... Anyway, thanks for reading - I'll write again after I get my thoughts collected and try again... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.