Grub Install OK For Atom N2600 Laptop?

ArchiMark · 2013-05-29 22:13:18

Some questions please about installing Arch on a new little laptop I bought....

A. 32bit or 64 bit Install

Laptop has a Atom N2600 cpu which as I understand it is a dual core 64 bit chip. However, when I installed Win7 on it, I had to use the 32 bit install.

If I'm understanding correctly what I've read online, it sounds like the N2600 is designed to be treated like a 32 bit system for purposes of OS...
So, chose that option in Arch installer menu...

B. Bootloader Choice

Have completed almost all of the install process...at point of installing bootloader...

Installed grub, but now wondering if that was OK or not... I'm dual-booting this with Windows 7 that was already installed and this laptop has UEFI....

However, when I installed Arch, I found I had to disable 'UEFI boot' in BIOS settings in order to get Arch installer to run. I enabled 'USB Legacy Boot' and 'Legacy Boot' and then installer ran from disk.

Concerned as I got the following message when configuring grub:

# grub-mkconfig -o /boot/grub/grub.cfg
Generating grub.cfg....

Found linux image: /boot/vmlinuz-linux
Found initrd image: /boot/initramfs-linux.img
WARNING: Failed to connect to lvemetad: No such file or directory. Falling back to internal scanning.
No volume groups found
[ 15863.571324] SQUASHFS error: can't find a SQUASHFS superblock on sda4
[ 15863.578150] EXT4-fs (sda4):unable to read superblock
[ 15863.5844926] EXT4-fs (sda4):unable to read superblock
[ 15863.591711] EXT4-fs (sda4):unable to read superblock
Found Windows 7 (loader) on /dev/sda1
Done

As for the sda4 partition it is an extended partition with sda5 (ext4) and sda6 (swap) created in it.

Given the above, any suggestions?

Thanks!

ArchiMark · 2013-05-29 22:29:07

Did some more research on dual-booting and UEFI issues...

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Un … _Partition

Multibooting Windows and Linux 64-bit Windows Vista (SP1+), Windows 7 and Windows 8 versions support booting using UEFI firmware. These Windows versions support either UEFI-GPT booting or BIOS-MBR booting. 32-bit Windows versions only support BIOS-MBR booting. See http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2581408 for more info.

This limitation does not exist in Linux Kernel but rather depends on the bootloader used. For the sake of Windows UEFI booting, the Linux bootloader used should also be installed in UEFI-GPT mode if booting from the same disk.

So, since I installed Windows 7 32bit, per the above, it sounds like I can use 'standard grub' bootloader, right?......

If that's correct, what should I do regarding the error message shown in post above?

Thanks!

karol · 2013-05-29 22:31:00

ArchiMark wrote:

Laptop has a Atom N2600 cpu which as I understand it is a dual core 64 bit chip. However, when I installed Win7 on it, I had to use the 32 bit install.
If I'm understanding correctly what I've read online, it sounds like the N2600 is designed to be treated like a 32 bit system for purposes of OS...

http://embedded.communities.intel.com/thread/5808
There simply are no 64-bit Windows drivers for that processor (graphics drivers etc.)

ArchiMark · 2013-05-29 22:35:55

Thanks for your reply....

So, does that mean I should have installed Arch 64bit?

And what about bootloader issue?

karol · 2013-05-29 22:44:39

32-bit is fine.
I found another thread mentioning 'lvemetad' https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=158725
Not much there, no solutions.

See http://forums.opensuse.org/english/get- … ost2433271 for a potential answer.

ArchiMark · 2013-05-29 22:54:42

Thanks again for your help.....

Read the thread on the second link you posted....not sure that situation is like mine....

ArchiMark · 2013-05-30 14:43:35

Perhaps some additional disk info would be useful?.....

# lsblk

And...........

# fdisk -l

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 * 63 37897334 18948636 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
/dev/sda2 37897335 38106179 104422+ 83 Linux
/dev/sda3 38106180 44243009 3068415 83 Linux
/dev/sda4 44243010 62524979 9140985 5 Extended
/dev/sda5 44243073 60629309 8193118+ 83 Linux
/dev/sda6 60629373 62524979 947803+ 82 Linux Swap / Solaris

Thanks!

cfr · 2013-06-02 01:01:51

Shouldn't sda2 be marked as bootable if you are using grub as your boot loader?

There is definitely something wrong because grub appears to be trying to treat the extended partition as ext4 and I guess that it should not. How exactly did you install grub?

ArchiMark · 2013-06-02 01:35:10

Good question.....but I thought that when you dual boot with Windows, you don't do that....but I could be wrong....

I installed grub per the Beginner's Guide....

Thanks!

cfr · 2013-06-02 02:09:58

Maybe you're right. But if you are dual booting with Windows, aren't you supposed to have a second partition for Windows's boot manager (https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Gr … S-MBR_mode)? Maybe that one is meant to be marked bootable?

Disclaimer: I know nothing whatsoever about Windows.

EDIT: It would be better to post the commands you used than to say you (think you) followed the Beginners' Guide. That way, if you misunderstood something or if the Guide is wrong, somebody may spot the problem.

Last edited by cfr (2013-06-02 02:11:51)

ArchiMark · 2013-06-02 02:27:29

Thanks again for your help and input...

I did follow the guide.....did the following:

# pacman -S grub-bios
# grub-install --recheck /dev/sda
# cp /usr/share/locale/en\@quot/LC_MESSAGES/grub.mo /boot/grub/locale/en.mo

And then...

# pacman -S os-prober

# grub-mkconfig -o /boot/grub/grub.cfg

And it's the last step as noted in my first post, that gave the error message....

henk · 2013-06-02 03:41:03

WARNING: Failed to connect to lvemetad: No such file or directory. Falling back to internal scanning.
   No volume groups found

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=159415

See post #3. Set sda4 up using LVM.

ArchiMark · 2013-06-02 04:15:55

Thanks, henk.....

Wasn't sure that I had to use LVM....haven't used it before...at least I don't think so....

cfr · 2013-06-02 16:06:36

You don't have to use lvm if you don't want to. There's no problem that I'm aware of with having sda4 just be a standard extended partition. I don't think you should try tangling with this until you sort out the basics unless there is some particular reason you want to use it. It would be better to figure out why grub is making that complaint and to fix that.

ArchiMark · 2013-06-02 19:16:35

Thanks, cfr.....

cfr · 2013-06-03 01:33:51

I think the key moral of the thread henk linked to is not "you must use lvm" but rather "I must have made a mistake somewhere". If you can't think or see what's wrong I would follow the solution in that thread and just start over following the Beginners' Guide. Post #3 in that thread is actually ambiguous. I read it as meaning something like "Yikes! No, I'm not trying to use lvm. I must have done something wrong somewhere for grub to complain like that. When I redid my (non-lvm) setup, it all worked fine." henk has read it as "Yikes! No, I forgot all about the need to use lvm. When I set up lvm, it all worked fine." But lvm is not compulsory so I would not go that route unless you wish.

Personally, I initially installed fairly simply and later redid the install to use lvm when I felt a bit more confident.

henk · 2013-06-03 03:27:41

@cfr you have put it down correctly. Reading the post once again your view of it makes more sense.
On a sidenote, last night I did a new install with the June snapshot, and after grub-mkconfig I got the same errors ArchiMark did have.
However, after the errors the scanning marched on, found my existing installs (including this one), and after rebooting Grub is
working perfectly.

Don't really know what to think about the errors right now............

ArchiMark · 2013-06-03 04:15:51

cfr wrote:

I think the key moral of the thread henk linked to is not "you must use lvm" but rather "I must have made a mistake somewhere". If you can't think or see what's wrong I would follow the solution in that thread and just start over following the Beginners' Guide. Post #3 in that thread is actually ambiguous. I read it as meaning something like "Yikes! No, I'm not trying to use lvm. I must have done something wrong somewhere for grub to complain like that. When I redid my (non-lvm) setup, it all worked fine." henk has read it as "Yikes! No, I forgot all about the need to use lvm. When I set up lvm, it all worked fine." But lvm is not compulsory so I would not go that route unless you wish.
Personally, I initially installed fairly simply and later redid the install to use lvm when I felt a bit more confident.

Thanks again, cfr....very helpful and think your advice makes a lot of sense (to reinstall Arch fresh....).....

Have taken that approach in the past when I have had installs that have odd problems...at certain point it is better/easier to just reinstall from the beginning....

ArchiMark · 2013-06-03 04:17:38

henk wrote:

@cfr you have put it down correctly. Reading the post once again your view of it makes more sense.
On a sidenote, last night I did a new install with the June snapshot, and after grub-mkconfig I got the same errors ArchiMark did have.
However, after the errors the scanning marched on, found my existing installs (including this one), and after rebooting Grub is
working perfectly.
Don't really know what to think about the errors right now............

Thanks for the info, henk.....while I'm sorry to hear you got error messages like me, it is nice to know that the issue may not be user error, but perhaps, a software problem?.....

cfr · 2013-06-03 22:26:21

It is only a warning. Maybe nothing is wrong if everybody sees the same thing?

ArchiMark · 2013-06-04 00:09:46

Good question....

Arch Linux

#1 2013-05-29 22:13:18

Grub Install OK For Atom N2600 Laptop?

#2 2013-05-29 22:29:07

Re: Grub Install OK For Atom N2600 Laptop?

#3 2013-05-29 22:31:00

Re: Grub Install OK For Atom N2600 Laptop?

#4 2013-05-29 22:35:55

Re: Grub Install OK For Atom N2600 Laptop?

#5 2013-05-29 22:44:39

Re: Grub Install OK For Atom N2600 Laptop?

#6 2013-05-29 22:54:42

Re: Grub Install OK For Atom N2600 Laptop?

#7 2013-05-30 14:43:35

Re: Grub Install OK For Atom N2600 Laptop?

#8 2013-06-02 01:01:51

Re: Grub Install OK For Atom N2600 Laptop?

#9 2013-06-02 01:35:10

Re: Grub Install OK For Atom N2600 Laptop?

#10 2013-06-02 02:09:58

Re: Grub Install OK For Atom N2600 Laptop?

#11 2013-06-02 02:27:29

Re: Grub Install OK For Atom N2600 Laptop?

#12 2013-06-02 03:41:03

Re: Grub Install OK For Atom N2600 Laptop?

#13 2013-06-02 04:15:55

Re: Grub Install OK For Atom N2600 Laptop?

#14 2013-06-02 16:06:36

Re: Grub Install OK For Atom N2600 Laptop?

#15 2013-06-02 19:16:35

Re: Grub Install OK For Atom N2600 Laptop?

#16 2013-06-03 01:33:51

Re: Grub Install OK For Atom N2600 Laptop?

#17 2013-06-03 03:27:41

Re: Grub Install OK For Atom N2600 Laptop?

#18 2013-06-03 04:15:51

Re: Grub Install OK For Atom N2600 Laptop?

#19 2013-06-03 04:17:38

Re: Grub Install OK For Atom N2600 Laptop?

#20 2013-06-03 22:26:21

Re: Grub Install OK For Atom N2600 Laptop?

#21 2013-06-04 00:09:46

Re: Grub Install OK For Atom N2600 Laptop?

Board footer