You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
I have a USB drive, and I installed Arch on it. The problem is, that if I use one btrfs partition for / and /boot, at boot I can only see the copyrights line of syslinux. It won't even get to the system selection table.
BUT if I make a backup of the root partition, change filesystem to ext4, and restore the files, the system boots fine.
Why would it be happening?
Last edited by Lockheed (2014-01-14 16:30:57)
Offline
I have the same issue, same symptom, only the header line pops up and no menu or "boot>" prompt ever loads.
In my setup, I have Arch on /dev/sda6, a legacy BIOS extended partition formatted as btrfs, and the / of my installation (including /boot) is in a dedicated btrfs subvolume. I attempt to chainload syslinux from the WinXP bootloader as I usually do. All works fine under ext4, but no go with btrfs. Looks like syslinux doesn't play well with btrfs at the moment, unless we are both missing something obvious...
The syslinux changelog suggests that booting from a btrfs subvolume is possible (as of version 4.06). However the changelog for 6.02 has a red Bug Warning saying that using syslinux 6.02 on btrfs corrupts the superblock...
Last edited by daviddem (2014-01-17 17:56:04)
Offline
I'm not sure whether that corruption bug applies if the /boot is on btrfs, or only if the btrfs filesystem was created the way that replaces MBR partition table.
Offline
Just a shot:
If you've set the default subvolume you MUST NOT add subvol=__active to your APPEND line.
Offline
Nope, not using subvolumes here.
Offline
I don't know syslinux very good. The only thing that would be left is the bug mentioned by daviddem. In this context there is also a chance that a fs-option (e.g. like compression) prevents booting.
Offline
Just a shot:
If you've set the default subvolume you MUST NOT add subvol=__active to your APPEND line.
I also tried without subvolumes, just installed on the base of the btrfs partition, and no joy either, same symptom. Not using compression either.
I've been asking in the syslinux IRC channel, but still haven't managed to get a hold of the dev who would know about this. I was told he is aware of my case though, and he might try to reproduce the problem. I was also told that the 6.02 bug should have been fixed in the 6.02-8 version...
Last edited by daviddem (2014-01-19 03:38:03)
Offline
Pages: 1