|
|||||||
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
10-23-2002, 06:40 PM
|
#1 |
|
Member (7 bit)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 110
 |
My own Idiocy
well, I did something stupid today
I was installing a "new" hard drive and using the Windows 2000 Admin Tool w/ the Disk stuff for the first time I accidently deleted my Linux BOOT partition, like an idiot-- I thought it was a leftover partition from this 2nd hand hard drive I bought Everything boots fine to both OS's but I dont' have a boot partition for Linux now-- I haven't tried anything further than logging in and poking my nose around. I'm just some crazy high school kid, so I don't know anything specifics about what exactly is in the boot partition I'm surprised the thing booted to either OS considering I'M using Lilo anyways, the boot failed Now to The Question and I'll shut up: Could someone give me a good "dummies" utility or detailed instruction on how to repartition and format my boot partition thanx |
|
|
|
10-23-2002, 09:29 PM
|
#2 |
|
Member (8 bit)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 229
|
It don't sound good, Snow. If you made the Linux emergency boot floppy during the original install, you may be able to boot to the os and work your way out of it, with Linux fdisk, etc. Otherwise you may be looking at an install. If the space that 'Was' the linux boot partition is now part of the windows partition, it gets worse...
|
|
|
|
|
10-23-2002, 10:30 PM
|
#3 |
|
Member (7 bit)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 110
|
that's what's weird-- I can boot and log into both root and my other account. Kudzu even configured the NIC that I had put in there a long time ago and had never got around to configuring yet
it just said "/boot partition: failed" @ boot but everything else was normal |
|
|
|
|
10-24-2002, 03:23 PM
|
#4 |
|
Member (8 bit)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 229
|
The /boot partition, usually has the linux kernel, and other associated files. If you look at the file system with your file manager, KDE, Gnome, whatever, does it show a /boot directory in the file tree? Could it be you have a /boot directory, but there is an error in LiLos' configuration, that gives the message. /boot does not always have to be in it's own separate 'physical' partition. It can be a /boot directory in the physical / partition.
|
|
|
|
|
10-24-2002, 04:33 PM
|
#5 |
|
Member (7 bit)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 110
|
I checked the /boot directory and it's intact but the partition is gone. I took some pictures of the startup errors:
http://www.geocities.com/snow_man130...pinfinity.html I thought it would be easier if we could see the same thing-- thanx for taking the time to help me w/ this |
|
|
|
|
10-25-2002, 04:23 PM
|
#6 |
|
Member (7 bit)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 110
|
just thought I'd pull this back to the top of the pile
|
|
|
|
|
10-25-2002, 07:57 PM
|
#7 |
|
Member (8 bit)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 229
|
O.K. You just proved that /boot exists, ls -la should show the rest of the files. Looks like /boot exists as a directory on the physical / (root) partition. The part about "special device LABEL = /boot" is interesting. I've only seen "special device" listed on my box, when I'm mounting something non-standard. So if I mount, say my camera memory on the USB it would be refered to as /dev/sda1 as a 'special device' USB mass storage. Using the graphical file manager in KDE may shed some clues, as to what is where. Kernel (vmlinuz) must exist somewhere, or you wouldn't boot
 Ok, let's answer a question you asked. Why create a special physical partition for /boot.... It used to be that there was a physical limitation on hardware, that would not allow an operating system to boot, if the kernel was located (physically) too far into a drive, (1023 cylinder rule), so you could locate your /boot partition early (not too many cylinders into) the drive and after boot was read it could transfer the operation to the / (root) partition which could lie a lot farther into the drive. (The boot partition only needed to be a few meg in size). In your case, I really have no idea why it is acting in this manner. This is a link to an old article (I found it doing a search for 1023 cylinder rule) http://gul.linux.ime.usp.br/install-...ml/node68.html and I include it here so you might see why some of these practices were developed. Note the section on the bottom titled important note. This explains "1023" Some questions answered ???
|
|
|
|
|
10-26-2002, 12:01 AM
|
#8 |
|
Member (7 bit)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 110
|
thanx
I think I'd heard that rule somewhere before and never made the connection-- it's interesting that RedHat still does that if it's unecessary in today's technology. Most people that would do a linux install on an older machine would have to have the knowledge to know exactly what packages to install, set up the partition, configure, LILO, etc, etc all from the shell prompt. So it seems unlikely or unreasonable that they'd do it to be retroactively compatible w/ older hardware. I'm gonna read that article tomorrow (it's fairly late right now and I have to take the ACT in the morning) thank you very much for your help. I think I'll leave it be for now-- I'll probably end up reinstalling anyways after awhile. I'm waiting on getting a copy of Win2k from our school cause they struck some deal w/ Microsoft-- I"m still pretty dependent on it. Someday I'll be free from liscence agreements, registry hacks that work half the time, etc, etc, etc. Oh well. I need sleep. goodnite and thanx nate |
|
|
|
|
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Linear Mode
