PDA

View Full Version : [ubuntu] 9.10 beta for amd64 doesn't finish boot in Parallels 4.0.3846 (on Mac 5,3/10.6.1)



jonnywot
October 18th, 2009, 07:59 AM
So I downloaded and installed the i386 beta of 9.10 onto a completely new Parallels (v 4.0.3846) virtual machine, and other than not auto-detecting my full-screen resolution correctly (mine is 1440x960, it selected 1440x1050), it seemed to work OK. I had already installed the final release of 9.04 for amd64 on a separate virtual machine, and other than the occasional scattered graphics artifact during startup, that too has always worked OK, because the docs on the amd64 version of 9.04 ALSO say that it'll work on Intel x86-64. It does, no problem.

However, when I created a third new, blank virtual machine to install the 9.10 beta for amd64, while the liveCD worked to boot it, and the install went completely smoothly, the first boot seemed to have some file system trouble, specifically with identifying what file system it should be using. I wasn't swift enough to get a screen cap that time, but it was all CLI. It said it couldn't find dev, and suggested I use the help command to consult a list of commands I could use (no man or apropos, however; it's OK, the list of available commands was short). I could cd around and ls, and while I found dev (in root), sure enough, it ls'ed nothing inside. Not sure how it cut itself off from an entire partition of stuff it had just installed, but that's what it had seemed to do.

So I tried a different approach. I made a duplicate of my 9.0.4 amd64 virtual machine, then alt-F2'ed "update manager -d", and accepted the 9.10 update. Upgrade, again, went smoothly. But again, it had some sort of problem with finding dev or whatever was intended to be inside it. This time, I got a screen cap (in .png format, as I'm on a Mac and .xcf is hard to come by). See attached, noting that there wasn't as much of an explanation on the virtual machine onto which I had installed 9.10 for amd64, from blank. But the prompt was the same.

In both cases, it got through the newly white Ubuntu logo, but never got to the brown splash (eww… :biggrin: ) screen in the bootup process.

Just taking n00b-style wild stabs in the dark (ow!), but I checked out the sticky about Ext3 vs Ext4 filesystems at the top of this forum. Is it possible the 9.10 beta for amd64 has one software package configured for use of one of the two, but a dependent package configured for use with the other?

Hey, I said I was a n00b! No need to flame too bad if that's totally off the mark. But it may (or may not) inspire. OK, what do you think? What do I need to do to get properly configured (for no repeat of this) and booted up? And what needs to happen so 9.10 for amd64 doesn't do this on Parallels, come the final release?

jonnywot
October 23rd, 2009, 06:57 PM
Same situation still going on with the RC.

jonnywot
October 24th, 2009, 05:02 AM
VMWare Fusion version 2.0.5 does not seem to have the same problem, though it points out upon startup the following:


Cannot connect virtual device ide1:0.

No corresponding device is available on the host.

Would you like an attempt to be made to connect this virtual device every time you power on the virtual machine?

There are "Yes" and "No" buttons. Selecting "Yes" gives the following response, after which startup continues normally, and the interface acts normally:



Virtual device ide1:0 will start disconnected.

Note that importing this virtual machine into Parallels yields the same problem as ever.

All of this makes me think that one library (within Ubuntu?) isn't telling another library (within the Parallels and/or VMware bootloader?) on what device 9.10 is getting installed, a device which is different (but how?) than 9.04. Parallels doesn't bother to ask what to do about this, figuring it's up to the Guest OS to solve. VMware does say, "Hmm, this doesn't seem right. Do you want me to try something from my multiple device-scanning bag of tricks?".

Having done more research on ext3 vs ext 4, I've found out that 9.10 installs on ext4 by default. Maybe the ext4 format obscures the device from Parallels' search for a boot device somehow? But that wouldn't explain why "update-manager -d"'ing from 9.04 fails the same way, as ext4 (so the docs say) doesn't REPLACE ext3, it just gets installed on a blank drive INSTEAD.

Unless my understanding of the docs is incomplete. Anyone have any input?

I'd like to go forward using Ubuntu 9.10 on Parallels (because I've noticed that the performance seems to be significantly better for most of what I do, than on VMWare), and I'd like it to be 64-bit. Let's hope Canonical gets it running right, by the 9.10 final.