Can't get grub or lilo to work

pooh sun tzu · 2004-06-21 08:35:17

Hello there,
I've spent the past 5 hours attempting to get either lilo or grub to work. Now, I'm not a linux newbie and am used to the DevFS format but I still get the words GRUB GRUB GRUB GRUB GRUB GRUB GRUB across my screen.

And before I get flamed, yes Pink Chick I've already read the documentation and wiki.

My setting is simple:

One primary hard drive:
- /boot partition - ext3 - 40m
- swap partition - swap - 264m
- / partition - reiserfs - approx 39g

I did them by hand to get the reiserfs choice instead of ext3, but that is the same layout it suggested in the automagic setup.

Using the 2.6 SCSI+IDE kernel included on the .6 iso. Thus, with such a basic and simple setup (a default one) you would think things would work. My grub configuration is the default file, because all of the information seemed to be correct as far as I know. No, I can't post it here because this isn't the other computer that I'm attempting Arch on.

Any thoughts? Would love to give arch a try, so long as this bit canbe fixed.

lanrat · 2004-06-21 11:57:06

I did a very similar partition setup yesterday for some machine and it worked quite well. Please post your menu.lst and hardisks setup (did you install arch to the first ide primary disk ?). What version of arch did you use for installation (0.6 base?).

EDIT: I just realized that you said you can't post your menu.lst :-) But how about using arch install cd to mount /boot in /mnt and chroot ? Did you also mount /boot on the ext3 partition during install (the part where it asks you about which partition is for swap and which for /)?

colnago · 2004-06-21 15:22:38

My solution for whenever this happens is to do this:

1) boot from knoppix
2) open a terminal and su
3) umount /dev/hda* (just in case)
4) mount -o dev /mnt/hda1
5) nedit /mnt/hda1/etc/lilo.conf
6) fix up the config file and save it
7) chroot /mnt/hda1
8) lilo

pooh sun tzu · 2004-06-22 06:28:15

Please post your menu.lst

It's the default menu.lst that is supposed to work with the automagic partition setup. No need to post it.

and hardisks setup

I already posted that above.

(did you install arch to the first ide primary disk ?)

As I said above, this is only on one disk. My setup has got to be the most common setup known to linux mankind, one hard disk with three partitions. I've noticed people using five partitions, two drives, and beyond because they are still holding onto windows. I don't have that, as per my origonal post.

Did you also mount /boot on the ext3 partition during install (the part where it asks you about which partition is for swap and which for /)?

for the love of tao. YES. read my origonal post please.

fix up the config file and save it

So the entire process could still have been done through the normal means. That's great. The problem isn't the script nor my configuration. I know grub, and the man file as well. It's dead on. It isn't hard to point hd(0,0) and hd(0,2) to the appropriate boot and / partitions. I get script errors on output term 5 about stage1 not being found, when I can stare right at it in the correct directory.

Sorry, moving back to slackware This isn't a user-error problem, as I've not only verified my configuration with friends of mine who use grub on slackware, but from my past use of grub as well. It's an OS script to init grub problem. If I have to knoppix and breaks arms just to get the grub script to work properly then arch just isn't ready for me to use yet. (of course I could fix it by hand, but what's the point? If one of the most basic features of the OS that is so incredibly important is broken... what can I expect from the rest of it?)

lanrat · 2004-06-22 09:33:18

I meant which ide is this primary harddisk connected to? I'll assume it's ide0. I can't access my arch box right now but IIRC I had to change the standard config. Normally root is pointing to 0,2 (which in this case and mine too is reiserfs partition) - but I changed it to 0,0. I also put 0,0 before kernel line because grub's root is the ext3 partition. I don't know if this is absolutely correct because I'm not a grub expert but it worked on two of my arch boxes. Maybe the default menu.lst is wrong - just post a bug if you think so. The last thing I did was installing grub in the disk mbr not in the partition (it should be the first item in the corresponding setup menu if the disk is on ide0). During an install process you can switch to vc 5 and there you should see how grub is installed. It won't find the stage file in the first step (in /grub) but it will find this file in the next step (/boot/grub). BTW you give up so quickly ;-)

EDIT: and you don't have to use knoppix to change the setting :-). I was suggesting the arch install cd.

pooh sun tzu · 2004-06-23 03:59:57

BTW you give up so quickly

We are talking about one of the most basic and essential steps of putting an OS onto a disk. I can do it in gentoo, I can do it in slackware, debian, redhat, vector, sirx, etc etc etc. It is not a difficult process. However, arch won't let me A.) have the script work properly with the configuration that I -know- works and B.) have the ability to do it manually without having to preform 'quickfixes'

So, do I give up quickly? Yes. I have better things to do than spend time with an OS that is missing a basic function of use. Arch has the potiential to be an amazing distrobution so long as the basic kinds get worked out. It isn't just me either, forums here and around google have tons of people who -know- the configuration should be working but watch the script fsck it up completely.

(it should be the first item in the corresponding setup menu if the disk is on ide0).

That's rather obvious, though. I mean, why else would it highlight a disk rather than a partition for you to install the boot on? :X

Arch just isn't ready yet. I'll more than happily try it on .7 to see if they've worked out the basic OS kinks, as I'm excited to see an i686 only distrobution.

Dusty · 2004-06-23 04:10:25

pooh sun tzu wrote:

Arch just isn't ready yet. I'll more than happily try it on .7 to see if they've worked out the basic OS kinks, as I'm excited to see an i686 only distrobution.

I think you're a little confused as to what isn't ready. Nobody else has trouble with lilo or grub, except for wanting fancy graphics or animations in the boot menu...

0.7 isn't anything special, it's just a snapshot of the rolling release at a specific time when things are up to date and stable.

Dusty

sarah31 · 2004-06-23 04:12:38

you mentioned that /boot was on its own partition. the default grub or lilo will not boot with such a setup. i ahave also heard that grub has issues on occasion with a separate /boot partiton.

thats all for my comments.

pooh sun tzu · 2004-06-23 04:15:59

Nobody else has trouble with lilo or grub, except for wanting fancy graphics or animations in the boot menu...

A quick google pulls it up easily, as well as on these forums. Most of them get it fixed because they have to alter it for their 2nd hard drive of 5th(evne 6th) partition. I'm talking about the default configuration file meant for the default partitioning scheme selected by the arch installer
, in which done that way with only one hard drive (not 24 of them) it works correctly in other operating systems. However, you are correct, I've yet to see anyone that dual-boots or uses 24 hard drives not have this problem solved.

you mentioned that /boot was on its own partition. the default grub or lilo will not boot with such a setup. i ahave also heard that grub has issues on occasion with a separate /boot partiton.

That had better not be it, as that's the partitioning method set and recommended by the arch installer. Even if done by hand, and still using the suggested partitioning, it should very well be able to work... or not be the default setup.

Not to mention that the menu.lst file is checking for a /boot partition on hd 0,0 and root on hd 0,2, meaning there -has- to be three partitions.

I'm certainly not starting to try a war here guys. It doesn't work like I need it to on one of the few things on an OS I hate having problems with. Even allowing the user to do grub 100% manually (gentoo-isk) (without having to cd swap into knoppix or any other livecd just to fix the origonal installations bad script) would have at least given me the chance to bypass the script and put it on the way I do the other OSes. It would be just like if the partioning for ext3 failed, even though it is used by the default fdisk configuration.

pooh sun tzu · 2004-06-23 04:27:20

Default partitions are this (approx)

partition one = 40 megs
partition two = 256 megs
partition three = all the rest of the HD

Now I know they won't put home as 40 megs because that would kill the users, and / won't fit on 40 megs of data either because of sheer filesize. So 40 megs seems to be like every other OS that recommends 35-40 as the /boot partition. This is the -default- setup And sure enough, when I look at the grub configuration it is asking for the kernel in hd 0,0 (/boot) and the root filesystem as hd 0,2. This means there has to be an hd 0,1 and according to how we setup our partitioning, hd 0,2 is / hd 0,1 is swap and hd 0,0 is /boot.

See where I'm getting at? :X I'm really trying to not be too confusing.

sarah31 · 2004-06-23 04:29:09

pooh sun tzu wrote:

Not to mention that the menu.lst file is checking for a /boot partition on hd 0,0 and root on hd 0,2, meaning there -has- to be three partitions.

this is the default:

# (0) Arch Linux
title  Arch Linux  [/boot/vmlinuz26]
root   (hd0,0)
kernel /boot/vmlinuz26 root=/dev/discs/disc0/part1 ro

now, correct me if i am wrong but hd0,0 refers to the mbr of the first hard drive. the kernel image can be found in /boot/vmlinuz26 which is in the root location /dev/discs/disc0/part1 which is the first partition of the first drive (there is no part0). in my case part1 corresponds to my / partition. at least that was my understanding.

EDIT: oh and i know you are not trying to be argumentative. i took no offense to your comments at all. i am just hoping that i could help is all.

pooh sun tzu · 2004-06-23 04:32:49

now, correct me if i am wrong but hd0,0 refers to the mbr of the first hard drive. the kernel image can be found in /boot/vmlinuz26 which is in the root location /dev/discs/disc0/part1 which is the first partition of the first drive (there is no part0). in my case part1 corresponds to my / partition. at least that was my understanding.

Because if that was the case (and I'm almost positive it isn't, but I could always be wrong) then it would -still- be looking for the root partition on hd 0,2 which would suddenly be the swap partition, and thus the script would still fail. And we don't load the kernel into the MBR so having grub check hd 0,0 for the kernel if it was the MBR would once again cause the script to fail.

So, I'm pretty sure that hd 0,0 = first partition and so forth. It's the rule I followed from debian to gentoo: "grub = partition -1"

edit:

From the grub manual:

http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/manual … stallation
(hd0,1)

Here, hd means it is a hard disk drive. The first integer 0 indicates the drive number, that is, the first hard disk, while the second integer, 1, indicates the partition number (or the PC slice number in the BSD terminology). Once again, please note that the partition numbers are counted from zero, not from one. This expression means the second partition of the first hard disk drive. In this case, GRUB uses one partition of the disk, instead of the whole disk.

fbidwell · 2004-06-23 06:08:28

I had a dumb problem when I installed arch on my second computer at home.

I forgot to hit return on "done" when setting the mount points. When I booted up I got all sorts or errors about not being able to find the partitions.

Are you sure you hit "done" on the installer screen when setting the mount points.

Arch was super easy to install for me and I hadn't used linux in about 8 years. The install pretty much worked as in the instructions, but like I said above it was real easy to not hit the done option when setting up the partitions. The installer will exit and go back to the main menu and not tell you anything is wrong until you try to boot.

pooh sun tzu · 2004-06-23 06:25:14

Are you sure you hit "done" on the installer screen when setting the mount points.

Yes, as that is the only way to leave the menu AFAIK. Could be wrong though, as I don't remember the method by heart. Since it installed the kernel to /boot just fine (no errors on term 5) I know that boot was mounted. I know / was mounted because there wasn't any term 5 errors for package installation.

The installer will exit and go back to the main menu and not tell you anything is wrong until you try to boot.

Mount partitions were fine, as I mentioned above. My problem wasn't on getting them mounted, but getting grub or lilo to work. On bootup I would get nothing but a flashing screen of GRUB scrolling by, or just the singular word GRUB.

lanrat · 2004-06-23 09:21:56

I think the problem may be in the type of the / filesystem. This is from the arch install guide:

The first choice is Auto-Prepare, which will automatically partition your hard drive into a /boot, swap, and root partition, and then create filesystems on all three. These partitions will also be automatically mounted in the proper place. To be exact, this option will create a
32 MB ext2 /boot partition
256 MB swap partition
ext3 root partition with the remaining space

Notice that default setup creates root ext3 partition. And grub can read ext3 partitions. When you change it to reiserfs and you will not change grub's root to hd 0,0 this could generate the problems.

pooh sun tzu · 2004-06-23 14:50:48

Notice that default setup creates root ext3 partition. And grub can read ext3 partitions. When you change it to reiserfs and you will not change grub's root to hd 0,0 this could generate the problems.

The first time I attempted an install I used ext3 on both /boot and /, and it was still a no go. The second time and beyond was with a reiserfs, and I KNOW grub can read it because I did it with gentoo each and every time I installed. Also, changing the filesystem to reiserfs would not invoke any need to change grub, as the location of the partition would be the exact same because partition filesystem type makes no changes to the physical location of the data.

From the official grub documentation:

http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/manual/grub.html

Support multiple filesystem types
Support multiple filesystem types transparently, plus a useful explicit blocklist notation. The currently supported filesystem types are BSD FFS, DOS FAT16 and FAT32, Minix fs, Linux ext2fs, ReiserFS, JFS, XFS, and VSTa fs. See Filesystem, for more information.

Mr Green · 2004-06-23 15:05:49

Well if Grub will not work then why not give lilo another go

Use Arch CD to get back into your system & check those config files once again ..

Mr Green

xerxes2 · 2004-06-23 15:09:00

If you haven't been such a whiner I might have helped you out. Here is a few suggestions for you.

1. Try to install arch again, do it right this time. Especially the partitioning and the bootmanager configuration.
2. Go back to one of those "great" distros you mentioned before.
3. If you want "optimized", Gentoo is the way to go. Heck, if you are lucky it's only takes a week to install it.
4. Buy a mac and live happily ever after.
5. Even if neither of these things work out for you, try to stop whining anyway.

pooh sun tzu · 2004-06-23 15:12:33

1. Try to install arch again, do it right this time. Especially the partitioning and the bootmanager configuration.

Who the hell do you think you are? IF you had read this thread you would have seen the configurations and settings were correct.

2. Go back to one of those "great" distros you mentioned before.

Why? I wanted to try arch. This isn't a distro war, so back off.

3. If you want "optimized", Gentoo is the way to go. Heck, if you are lucky it's only takes a week to install it.

I stopped using gentoo because I hated the compile times. Slackware gets me the same speed without the compilation. Why are you even bringing this up? Back the hell off because this is not about which OS is better, it's about improving arch.

4. Buy a mac and live happily ever after.

Certainly doesn't solve the arch error.

5. Even if neither of these things work out for you, try to stop whining anyway.

Try to be helpful, and not cocky, or risk bringing down the opinion people have of the friendliness of the arch community.

----------

Well if Grub will not work then why not give lilo another go

Tried lilo as well, no go. It will install it successfully, and after reboot it fails. It isn't grub or lilo, I'm telling you guys. It's the script they run to install both.

Use Arch CD to get back into your system & check those config files once again ..

Because Iv'e checked and rechecked the configuration, I've debated it with the others above (Read the rest of the thread, right?). My configurations are correct. If the script doesn't work and I have to twist an arm and leg by using a resuce CD to rescue a -default- installation... come on.. seriously.

I already said in the first post I would not be using it until this little glitch is fixed. The OS seems great, and so far as I've noticed anyone who likes to dualboot and use windows (I don't) or has two hard drives will have no problems changing the configuration from it's default. My simple setup does, end of story.

Mr Green

Mr Green · 2004-06-23 15:15:31

xerxes2 wrote:

If you want "optimized", Gentoo is the way to go. Heck, if you are lucky it's only takes a week to install it.

Wow that quick rofl

Mr Green

Dusty · 2004-06-23 15:23:44

pooh sun tzu wrote:

1. Try to install arch again, do it right this time. Especially the partitioning and the bootmanager configuration.
Who the hell do you think you are?

Oh, don't mind him, he's a Swede.

5. Even if neither of these things work out for you, try to stop whining anyway.
Try to be helpful, and not cocky, or risk bringing down the opinion people have of the friendliness of the arch community.

We're friendly to those who are friendly to us. You've been complaining and whining that Arch won't work for you.

You claim the configurations are correct, but if they were, Arch would work.

I'm surprised Sarah's been so polite... we'll have to look into this. :-D

I strongly recommend LiLo over Grub. I've never had any luck with Grub. But that's just me

Tried lilo as well, no go. It will install it successfully, and after reboot it fails. It isn't grub or lilo, I'm telling you guys. It's the script they run to install both.

Edit the script to suit you. Maybe if you gave us some hints as to what the problem is we could help.

I already said in the first post I would not be using it until this little glitch is fixed.

Cool. We can't fix it unless we know what it is. If you think you've explained it, you're wrong. Submit a bug report.

pooh sun tzu · 2004-06-23 15:28:04

Cool. We can't fix it unless we know what it is. If you think you've explained it, you're wrong. Submit a bug report.

More than happy to Don't think I'm taking a dump on arch, I really honestly want to see this distro go very far, and this conversation was never meant to make it this far as all I've done so far were defend my descisions with grub by quoting their own documentation.

I'll go submit that report now, but I would really appreciate it if people would stop saying my configuration is incorrect when I've not only listed the partition setup I'm using, but noted that the default configuration is correct for that setup.

[b] edit:[/b[

Edit the script to suit you. Maybe if you gave us some hints as to what the problem is we could help.

The script itself fails, but succeeds. In term five I can watch it fail to find /boot/grub/stage1 and stage2 even though I can switch to term 2 and see them right there. It may be because it fails to find them on the default script... but why would that happen? And I'm really not complaining, I've just been answering the suggestions people have been given me. So don't take it as whining, as if people wouldn't have resuggested everything origonally suggested to me.. this thread would have been a lot shorter

-waves- Take care guys, best of wishes on release .7

xerxes2 · 2004-06-23 15:48:26

All you have done is whine and showing us documentation we already know about.
If you promise to stop whine, continue to read.

1. Use ext2 for /boot.
2. Make sure your menu.lst look like this:
# (0) Arch Linux
title Arch Linux [/boot/vmlinuz]
root (hd0,2)
kernel (hd0.0)/vmlinuz26 root=/dev/discs/disc0/part3 ro
3. Dont forget to "install grub" in mbr before you reboot. Stage two and menu.lst should end up on /boot.

You haven't shown us a single byte yet of your conf. Show us the beef!

pooh sun tzu · 2004-06-23 15:56:45

1. Use ext2 for /boot.

You must have missed where I said I did this already. And you must have missed documentation (that you seem to know) that says grub handels ext3 as well as ext2. IF arch breaks this (which I know it doesn't) then it's a bad distro. Since I know arch doesn't break grub and that the same events occured when I used ext2 happened for ext3, we can eliminate that now can't we?

2. Make sure your menu.lst look like this:
# (0) Arch Linux
title Arch Linux [/boot/vmlinuz]
root (hd0,2)
kernel (hd0.0)/vmlinuz26 root=/dev/discs/disc0/part3 ro

Thank you for quoting the default configuration file.

3. Dont forget to "install grub" in mbr before you reboot. Stage two and menu.lst should end up on /boot.

Did that, obviously, or else I wouldn't be having script errors on it not finding stage1 during grub installation

You haven't shown us a single byte yet of your conf. Show us the beef!

Read the origonal parent post, and realise why I can't. It's default configuration file, which you just posted above.

You've been 0 help in attempting to get arch working for me, please stop repeating the things I've already tried and that we've already discussed in this thread.

PipoDeClown · 2004-06-23 16:04:06

try partitioning your drive with something different than cfdisk which is in the arch setup.
try normal fdisk or www.ranish.com/part or partition magic.
if found out that somehow cfdisk is messing op something (i tried to be more vague, )

oh ya, it could also depend on what kind of hardware ur using. bios version, chipset etc etc.

Arch Linux

#1 2004-06-21 08:35:17

Can't get grub or lilo to work

#2 2004-06-21 11:57:06

Re: Can't get grub or lilo to work

#3 2004-06-21 15:22:38

Re: Can't get grub or lilo to work

#4 2004-06-22 06:28:15

Re: Can't get grub or lilo to work

#5 2004-06-22 09:33:18

Re: Can't get grub or lilo to work

#6 2004-06-23 03:59:57

Re: Can't get grub or lilo to work

#7 2004-06-23 04:10:25

Re: Can't get grub or lilo to work

#8 2004-06-23 04:12:38

Re: Can't get grub or lilo to work

#9 2004-06-23 04:15:59

Re: Can't get grub or lilo to work

#10 2004-06-23 04:27:20

Re: Can't get grub or lilo to work

#11 2004-06-23 04:29:09

Re: Can't get grub or lilo to work

#12 2004-06-23 04:32:49

Re: Can't get grub or lilo to work

#13 2004-06-23 06:08:28

Re: Can't get grub or lilo to work

#14 2004-06-23 06:25:14

Re: Can't get grub or lilo to work

#15 2004-06-23 09:21:56

Re: Can't get grub or lilo to work

#16 2004-06-23 14:50:48

Re: Can't get grub or lilo to work

#17 2004-06-23 15:05:49

Re: Can't get grub or lilo to work

#18 2004-06-23 15:09:00

Re: Can't get grub or lilo to work

#19 2004-06-23 15:12:33

Re: Can't get grub or lilo to work

#20 2004-06-23 15:15:31

Re: Can't get grub or lilo to work

#21 2004-06-23 15:23:44

Re: Can't get grub or lilo to work

#22 2004-06-23 15:28:04

Re: Can't get grub or lilo to work

#23 2004-06-23 15:48:26

Re: Can't get grub or lilo to work

#24 2004-06-23 15:56:45

Re: Can't get grub or lilo to work

#25 2004-06-23 16:04:06

Re: Can't get grub or lilo to work

Board footer