PDA

View Full Version : [SOLVED] 12.04 dual boot installation fails



Tranas
October 19th, 2012, 02:13 AM
Fresh install of XP followed by a fresh install of 12.04 results in the following error: error: unknown filesystem. grub rescue>. Prior to the 12.04 install, XP works fine. During the 12.04 install, all partitions and free space was visible, and the install seemed to complete without issues until the error message. Guidance would be appreciated. TIA

Tranas
October 19th, 2012, 03:52 AM
Fix MBR via recovery console in XP allows the machine to boot to windows. Why is GRUB/Ubuntu trashing the boot sequence?

Tranas
October 19th, 2012, 11:31 AM
It has been suggested I try repairing your GRUB from Ubuntu (via a LiveCD) and not Windows.

I did not attempt to repair grub from the recovery console in windows, nor have I seen anything anywhere about using windows to repair grub. I simply needed a machine that boots, so I ran fixmbr...

„Boot-Repair-Disk“ is unable to find the OS, so I doubt the live CD version could do the repair if a dedicate Boot-Repair disk will not.

I have deleted and recreated the Ubuntu and swap partitions and then reinstalled Ubuntu - which crashes the MBR exactly the same way.

offgridguy
October 19th, 2012, 05:40 PM
Just to clarify. You are able to boot into windows now?

oldfred
October 19th, 2012, 05:48 PM
You cannot do any fixes to Linux from Windows. Generally you use Windows tools for Windows & Linux tools for Linux.

From Boot-Repair post the link to the Boot-Info report it creates.
'Create BootInfo' report (Other Options)

Tranas
October 19th, 2012, 06:05 PM
OffGridGuy - yes, I can boot into Windows

OldFred - you might re-read my previous post.

Another point is that PartImage has no difficulty seeing, expanding or otherwise configuring the Linux and swap partitions. The 12.04 install CD also has no trouble seeing, deleting, formatting or creating partitions, nor attempting to install 12.04.

The problem is Grub, imho, and as much as they brag about how it is just great, Grub is a pita. Just do a search on grub rescue> and associated error messages - it's a real eye opener.

Tranas
October 19th, 2012, 06:16 PM
OffGridGuy - just to be clear, I can boot to Windows, but only after restoring the MBR using the XP recovery console. [12.04 trashes the MBR at every attempted install and grub has never displayed the option screen] HTH

oldfred
October 19th, 2012, 09:44 PM
I did not ask you to run Boot-Repair to fix system, but generate a report so we can see if something looks amiss. Please run the BootInfo report and post link.

Tranas
October 19th, 2012, 10:13 PM
Boot repair does not run

at all
nada
no workee

it does not see the „OS“

apparently, just like grub

if it cannot see
it cannot run reports

darkod
October 19th, 2012, 10:16 PM
Then it's not just grub, is it. Out of what ever reason, it doesn't see the partition(s).

If you boot into live mode with the ubuntu cd, what do these commands output:

sudo fdisk -l (small L)
sudo parted -l

oldfred
October 19th, 2012, 10:17 PM
So can you boot liveCD or not? How can you install if you cannot boot liveCd?

Tranas
October 20th, 2012, 03:18 AM
Then it's not just grub, is it. Out of what ever reason, it doesn't see the partition(s).

If you boot into live mode with the ubuntu cd, what do these commands output:

sudo fdisk -l (small L)
sudo parted -l


ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo fdisk -l

Disk /dev/sda: 250.1 GB, 250059350016 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 30401 cylinders, total 488397168 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x0003c255

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 * 63 20482874 10241406 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
/dev/sda2 20482875 464007167 221762146+ 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
/dev/sda3 464007168 484485119 10238976 83 Linux
/dev/sda4 484487166 488396799 1954817 5 Extended
/dev/sda5 484487168 488396799 1954816 82 Linux swap / Solaris

Disk /dev/sdb: 1500.3 GB, 1500301910016 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 182401 cylinders, total 2930277168 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x15af43bf

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sdb1 63 2929677659 1464838798+ 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary.

Disk /dev/sdc: 1500.3 GB, 1500301910016 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 182401 cylinders, total 2930277168 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x15af43bf

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sdc1 63 2929677659 1464838798+ 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary.

Disk /dev/mapper/pdc_ddbhgeedgg: 1500.0 GB, 1499999961088 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 182364 cylinders, total 2929687424 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x15af43bf

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/mapper/pdc_ddbhgeedgg1 63 2929677659 1464838798+ 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary.

Disk /dev/mapper/pdc_ddbhgeedgg1: 1500.0 GB, 1499994929664 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 182363 cylinders, total 2929677597 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes
Alignment offset: 512 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x69205244

This doesn't look like a partition table
Probably you selected the wrong device.

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/mapper/pdc_ddbhgeedgg1p1 ? 218129509 1920119918 850995205 72 Unknown
Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary.
/dev/mapper/pdc_ddbhgeedgg1p2 ? 729050177 1273024900 271987362 74 Unknown
/dev/mapper/pdc_ddbhgeedgg1p3 ? 168653938 168653938 0 65 Novell Netware 386
Partition 3 does not start on physical sector boundary.
/dev/mapper/pdc_ddbhgeedgg1p4 2692939776 2692991410 25817+ 0 Empty
Partition 4 does not start on physical sector boundary.

Partition table entries are not in disk order
ubuntu@ubuntu:~$

Tranas
October 20th, 2012, 03:51 AM
Then it's not just grub, is it. Out of what ever reason, it doesn't see the partition(s).

If you boot into live mode with the ubuntu cd, what do these commands output:

sudo fdisk -l (small L)
sudo parted -l

... and this is the result with the fakeraid array disconnected. Even if Ubuntu cannot deal with fakeraid properly, it should have no issues setting up dual boot on the following config - no?

*NEITHER* setup will boot after 12.04 install to sda3


ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo fdisk -l

Disk /dev/sda: 250.1 GB, 250059350016 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 30401 cylinders, total 488397168 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x0003c255

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 * 63 20482874 10241406 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
/dev/sda2 20482875 464007167 221762146+ 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
/dev/sda3 464007168 484485119 10238976 83 Linux
/dev/sda4 484487166 488396799 1954817 5 Extended
/dev/sda5 484487168 488396799 1954816 82 Linux swap / Solaris
ubuntu@ubuntu:~$

Tranas
October 20th, 2012, 06:12 AM
Then it's not just grub, is it. Out of what ever reason, it doesn't see the partition(s).

sudo parted -l[/code]

ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo parted -l
Model: ATA WDC WD2500JB-00G (scsi)
Disk /dev/sda: 250GB
Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
Partition Table: msdos

Number Start End Size Type File system Flags
1 32.3kB 10.5GB 10.5GB primary ntfs boot
2 10.5GB 238GB 227GB primary ntfs
3 238GB 248GB 10.5GB primary ext4
4 248GB 250GB 2002MB extended
5 248GB 250GB 2002MB logical linux-swap(v1)


Model: ATA ST1500DL003-9VT1 (scsi)
Disk /dev/sdb: 1500GB
Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/4096B
Partition Table: msdos

Number Start End Size Type File system Flags
1 32.3kB 1500GB 1500GB primary ntfs


Model: ATA ST1500DL003-9VT1 (scsi)
Disk /dev/sdc: 1500GB
Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/4096B
Partition Table: msdos

Number Start End Size Type File system Flags
1 32.3kB 1500GB 1500GB primary ntfs


Model: Linux device-mapper (linear) (dm)
Disk /dev/mapper/pdc_ddbhgeedgg1: 1500GB
Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/4096B
Partition Table: loop

Number Start End Size File system Flags
1 0.00B 1500GB 1500GB ntfs


Model: Linux device-mapper (mirror) (dm)
Disk /dev/mapper/pdc_ddbhgeedgg: 1500GB
Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/4096B
Partition Table: msdos

Number Start End Size Type File system Flags
1 32.3kB 1500GB 1500GB primary ntfs


Warning: Unable to open /dev/sr0 read-write (Read-only file system). /dev/sr0
has been opened read-only.
Error: Can't have a partition outside the disk!

ubuntu@ubuntu:~$

**********************
without fakeraid follows
**********************

ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo parted -l
Model: ATA WDC WD2500JB-00G (scsi)
Disk /dev/sda: 250GB
Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
Partition Table: msdos

Number Start End Size Type File system Flags
1 32.3kB 10.5GB 10.5GB primary ntfs boot
2 10.5GB 238GB 227GB primary ntfs
3 238GB 248GB 10.5GB primary ext4
4 248GB 250GB 2002MB extended
5 248GB 250GB 2002MB logical linux-swap(v1)


Warning: Unable to open /dev/sr0 read-write (Read-only file system). /dev/sr0
has been opened read-only.
Error: Can't have a partition outside the disk!

ubuntu@ubuntu:~$

Tranas
October 20th, 2012, 07:35 AM
Warning: Unable to open /dev/sr0 read-write (Read-only file system). /dev/sr0
has been opened read-only.
Error: Can't have a partition outside the disk!



a hint of the issue may be here...

http://askubuntu.com/questions/61939/ubuntu-installation-does-not-recognize-drive-partinioning

So it would appear that Ubuntu, as with disks that were previously part of a raid set, buries it's head in the sand and does nothing - i.e. brings down the machine or brings down the install. What a waste of time..... for everybody.

This would be a good time to note that *FEDORA* deals with formerly raid disks by offering to deal with the problem [Ubuntu simply displays *NOTHING* when you have to partition for an install and forces you to do a manual repair] and I would be willing to bet FEDORA deals with this issue similarly.

Evidently, Ubuntu has known about both issues for some time (1+ yr at least) and simply chooses not to deal with it - their version of the Pinto exploding gas tank, aka f_ _ _ the customer. YMMV

darkod
October 20th, 2012, 09:42 AM
And which disk are you booting from, the 250GB disk or the raid array?

Usually when people install on raid, they install both OSs on the raid, not just one. I am not sure how it would work if you try to install grub2 on the MBR of /dev/sda and boot from it.

But your bios might be booting from the raid anyway, and here is the confusion. Grub2 doesn't install correctly on fakeraid arrays if using the standard live cd.

For raid installations it's recommended to use the alternate install cd. The alternate installer installs grub2 on fakeraid without issues. I guess in your case you should use the alternate installer too even if the ubuntu destination is not the fakeraid, because the bootloader needs to be on the fakeraid since the bios boot from it.

So if you use the alternate cd I think it would work.

Tranas
October 20th, 2012, 10:02 AM
And which disk are you booting from, the 250GB disk or the raid array?

Usually when people install on raid, they install both OSs on the raid, not just one. I am not sure how it would work if you try to install grub2 on the MBR of /dev/sda and boot from it.

But your bios might be booting from the raid anyway, and here is the confusion. Grub2 doesn't install correctly on fakeraid arrays if using the standard live cd.


Booting from SDA1 on the 250

When we are dealing with Ubuntu, we disconnect the raid drive(s) to keep Ubuntu from trashing the configuration - both OS's only see the 250 GB drive.

There was no array when XP + 12.04 were (re)installed. [XP does not care if the raid is there or not]. There was *NEVER* an attempt to install *EITHER* OS on the fakeraid.

The BIOS cannot see the raid drive(s) if they are not connected. The boot priority can be set in the BIOS, but if there is no raid drive, that cannot be the issue.

darkod
October 20th, 2012, 11:19 AM
The installer very rarely trashes anything, especially if you are careful and use it correctly.

I consider disconnecting hardware during installation a very bad idea. Personally, if you plan to use the machine with a certain hardware configuration, I don't see a point installing with a different configuration and then later finding out it doesn't work when you connect the rest of the hardware.
You have to give it a chance to detect everything it needs to work with. You either plan to use the raid or not.

It might be an issue detecting the disk depending on the sata mode. For raid you would set the sata mode to RAID while for standard operation it should be AHCI (or IDE for XP compatibility).

So, even with the raid disconnected, if the sata mode is left on RAID it can have issues with the disk. Now, the problem is that some boards have the same setting accross all ports, so they are all either RAID or AHCI.
Since you seem to want to be using fakeraid, you probably have the setting on RAID. I would try the alternate installer anyway. I think it will give you better results.

And I would connect the raid during install so that it's detected. But the choice is yours. If you leave it out I think it won't show the array later so you will have to fix that too.

Tranas
October 20th, 2012, 11:58 AM
The installer very rarely trashes anything, especially if you are careful and use it correctly.

I consider disconnecting hardware during installation a very bad idea. Personally, if you plan to use the machine with a certain hardware configuration, I don't see a point installing with a different configuration and then later finding out it doesn't work when you connect the rest of the hardware.
You have to give it a chance to detect everything it needs to work with. You either plan to use the raid or not.

It might be an issue detecting the disk depending on the sata mode. For raid you would set the sata mode to RAID while for standard operation it should be AHCI (or IDE for XP compatibility).

So, even with the raid disconnected, if the sata mode is left on RAID it can have issues with the disk. Now, the problem is that some boards have the same setting accross all ports, so they are all either RAID or AHCI.
Since you seem to want to be using fakeraid, you probably have the setting on RAID. I would try the alternate installer anyway. I think it will give you better results.

And I would connect the raid during install so that it's detected. But the choice is yours. If you leave it out I think it won't show the array later so you will have to fix that too.

I appreciate the help, but we are talking past one another.

I never said the installer trashes the raid. The raid config gets trashed when Ubuntu sees 2 drives and you access the drive(s) from Ubuntu which triggers a failed array message. So we *DO NOT AND DID NOT CONNECT THE RAID ARRAY WHEN INSTALLING 12.04* There is no SATA/raid status to set. The motherboard does not have SATA or Raid. I never asked for help in this thread setting up 12.04 with fakeraid.

rerun:
„12.04 dual boot installation fails
Fresh install of XP followed by a fresh install of 12.04 results in the following error: error: unknown filesystem. grub rescue>. Prior to the 12.04 install, XP works fine. During the 12.04 install, all partitions and free space was visible, and the install seemed to complete without issues until the error message.“

Empty drive 250 GB only, no partitions, no OS, no nothing. Bare install of XP followed by a bare install of 12.04 = error: unknown filesystem. grub rescue> Repeatable.


ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo fdisk -l

Disk /dev/sda: 250.1 GB, 250059350016 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 30401 cylinders, total 488397168 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x0003c255

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 * 63 20482874 10241406 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
/dev/sda2 20482875 464007167 221762146+ 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
/dev/sda3 464007168 484485119 10238976 83 Linux
/dev/sda4 484487166 488396799 1954817 5 Extended
/dev/sda5 484487168 488396799 1954816 82 Linux swap / Solaris
ubuntu@ubuntu:~$

ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo parted -l
Model: ATA WDC WD2500JB-00G (scsi)
Disk /dev/sda: 250GB
Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
Partition Table: msdos

Number Start End Size Type File system Flags
1 32.3kB 10.5GB 10.5GB primary ntfs boot
2 10.5GB 238GB 227GB primary ntfs
3 238GB 248GB 10.5GB primary ext4
4 248GB 250GB 2002MB extended
5 248GB 250GB 2002MB logical linux-swap(v1)


Warning: Unable to open /dev/sr0 read-write (Read-only file system). /dev/sr0
has been opened read-only.
Error: Can't have a partition outside the disk!

darkod
October 20th, 2012, 12:06 PM
So what is the sata mode set to in BIOS? There is such an option on all boards that support raid. There ia an option called sata mode.

If you boot in live mode with the cd and open /dev/sda3, can you see these files there:
/boot/grub/grub.cfg
/boot/grub/core.img

PS. Depending on the BIOS, some of them can't read boot files beyond 137GB. In your case the grub boot files are beyond this point but I can't say for sure that is the problem. You can try by creating a small primary /boot partition on the start of the disk for ubuntu first (you can do it from live mode, 500MB ext4 partition is enough). Then install XP after that partition.
Then install ubuntu using the manual method (Something Else) and use the 500MB as ext4, mount point /boot. You can create root and swap as logical after the XP partitions.
That would show if the 137GB is a problem or not. If this works with /boot at the start, it's probably this.

Tranas
October 20th, 2012, 01:43 PM
So what is the sata mode set to in BIOS? There is such an option on all boards that support raid. There ia an option called sata mode.

If you boot in live mode with the cd and open /dev/sda3, can you see these files there:
/boot/grub/grub.cfg
/boot/grub/core.img

PS. Depending on the BIOS, some of them can't read boot files beyond 137GB. In your case the grub boot files are beyond this point but I can't say for sure that is the problem. You can try by creating a small primary /boot partition on the start of the disk for ubuntu first (you can do it from live mode, 500MB ext4 partition is enough). Then install XP after that partition.
Then install ubuntu using the manual method (Something Else) and use the 500MB as ext4, mount point /boot. You can create root and swap as logical after the XP partitions.
That would show if the 137GB is a problem or not. If this works with /boot at the start, it's probably this.

I don't know how to be more clear than I already have.

This motherboard does not support raid, it does not have raid in any form, nor does it support SATA nor does it have SATA in any form. The 250 gig is IDE.

The BIOS supports > 137 gb [48 bit LBA within the bios]

darkod
October 20th, 2012, 02:18 PM
Well, the posts you made with a fakeraid array present certainly didn't help to clear the confusion. And you mention fakeraid in few more posts. So I got the impression it's connected to the motherboard. Even if it's on a sata card, it's the same if you plan to use the fakeraid together with the dual boot even if no OS is installed on the actual array. You still have to make sure they see it correctly.

And if you never plan to have the fakeraid array connected, why include it in your posts and create confusion.

But nevermind the array right now as you say you don't want it and there is only one IDE disk connected to the board.

I see you didn't post whether you can see the grub files on sda3 or not, so we will have to do it blind. Boot the ubuntu cd in live mode and try this:

sudo mount /dev/sda3 /mnt
sudo grub-install --root-directory=/mnt /dev/sda

Restart without the cd and see if that helped somehow.

On the other hand, are you sure the LBA support means there is no 137GB limitation? I am not sure whether it was only to recognize big disks, or for the 137GB. I would still try with a small /boot at start of the disk. Especially if the grub2 reinstall above doesn't help.

offgridguy
October 20th, 2012, 05:27 PM
Very interesting thread; reinforces why I don't dual boot. Sorry i can't be of any help
though.

Tranas
October 21st, 2012, 06:21 AM
Well, the posts you made with a fakeraid array present certainly didn't help to clear the confusion. And you mention fakeraid in few more posts. So I got the impression it's connected to the motherboard. Even if it's on a sata card, it's the same if you plan to use the fakeraid together with the dual boot even if no OS is installed on the actual array. You still have to make sure they see it correctly.

And if you never plan to have the fakeraid array connected, why include it in your posts and create confusion.

But nevermind the array right now as you say you don't want it and there is only one IDE disk connected to the board.

I see you didn't post whether you can see the grub files on sda3 or not, so we will have to do it blind. Boot the ubuntu cd in live mode and try this:

sudo mount /dev/sda3 /mnt
sudo grub-install --root-directory=/mnt /dev/sda

Restart without the cd and see if that helped somehow.

On the other hand, are you sure the LBA support means there is no 137GB limitation? I am not sure whether it was only to recognize big disks, or for the 137GB. I would still try with a small /boot at start of the disk. Especially if the grub2 reinstall above doesn't help.

The point of this thread is -

error: unknown filesystem. grub rescue>

if you cannot get a basic disk configured, why add an additional layer of raid configuration issues.

This MB is in a working [production] XP box. The XP configuration works fine with a TX2300 [PCI] raid card, which has nothing to do with the motherboard's capabilities. As you mentioned, there was a previous thread about raid - and how 12.04 deals with it. The end result of that thread was - you have to run specific code to have 12.04 recognize the array for what it is - fakeraid - instead of 2 separate drives. All fine and dandy, but you have to be able to boot 12.04 to get there. As you can see, even without the raid, I cannot get there in a dual boot configuration on a single drive. We know we can install 12.04 alone and and it sees the [raid] drives separately, but accessing them trashes the consistency of the array, resulting in an 8+ hour rebuild of the array. So the point of this thread is to deal with the failure of 12.04 to install on *this* motherboard *without* the TX2300 in a dual boot configuration with XP.

The info on the bios is from the spec sheet for the mb. I have no idea from the wording if it means more than large disk support.

/boot/grub/grub.cfg
/boot/grub/core.img
do not exist on sda3 [I presume they are not "hidden"]

The only files in the grub folder are
gfxblacklist.txt
grubenv

grub install went as follows -

ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo mount /dev/sda3 /mnt
ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo grub-install --root-directory=mnt /dev/sda
/usr/sbin/grub-probe: error: cannot find a device for mnt/boot/grub (is /dev mounted?).
ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo mount /dev/sda3 /mnt
mount: /dev/sda3 already mounted or /mnt busy
mount: according to mtab, /dev/sda3 is already mounted on /mnt
ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo grub-install --root-directory=mnt dev/sda
/usr/sbin/grub-probe: error: cannot find a device for mnt/boot/grub (is /dev mounted?).
ubuntu@ubuntu:~$

So this could explain why install trashes the MBR - because after the failed install of 12.04 the MBR then directs the boot process to a location that is not visible/does not exist. That is what the cryptic boot error message means. Also explains why Boot-Repairs's OS prober goes into an endless loop looking for grub.

<begin rant>
The question arises at this point - what are Ubuntu/Grub developers thinking when they write this sort of code? [particularly the coders at grub who off their crappy code problems on the bios of an old MB]. Seems that it would be basic [like checking for old raid info on a disk] to halt the install if install is unable to write the grub files [which it obviously cannot]. You know - something high tech like "if the files don't exist after trying to write them then tell the installer that install is halted because it cannot write the grub files". Hardly rocket science.
<end rant>

Seems another alternative to the small partition would be to install 12.04 on a separate drive/partition (sdb1), leaving XP on sda1? This would make the 137 gig limit moot, as 12.04 would then be on the first 10 gig of sdb. Let me know if I have this right, as that is a more acceptable solution in our case. TIA

Tranas
October 21st, 2012, 06:27 AM
Very interesting thread; reinforces why I don't dual boot. Sorry i can't be of any help
though.

Actually, on newer mb's setting up dual boot using grub2 is pretty trick and sets up without major issues.

We never found linux to be an acceptable alternative to Windows until 11.10 came along, so we have decided to set up various machines as dual boot.

One of the claimed advantages of linux is the ability to work with older hardware. Sad to say, such is not always the case.

darkod
October 21st, 2012, 09:44 AM
You are running the grub-install command wrong. It should be:

sudo grub-install --root-directory=/mnt /dev/sda

But if grub.cfg and core.img don't exist in sda3/boot/grub then only the above command won't help. That is used only to install the small grub2 code on the MBR. In your case you are missing the main core.img file and the config files in /boot/grub.

Use live mode and do the full chroot procedure to purge grub2 completely and reinstall it. Use my post #4 in this thread:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2073840

Only in your case, in the first command use /dev/sda3 instead of /dev/sda5 because your root is /dev/sda3.

As you can see from the reply in that thread, it works and confirmed. So, run the commands carefully, with the exact syntax, and if it doesn't work there is some specific issue with your machine. Including that you might be hit with the 137GB problem even if you don't think so.

Try the chroot grub2 reinstall first and lets see.

Tranas
October 21st, 2012, 12:26 PM
You are running the grub-install command wrong. It should be:

sudo grub-install --root-directory=/mnt /dev/sda

But if grub.cfg and core.img don't exist in sda3/boot/grub then only the above command won't help. That is used only to install the small grub2 code on the MBR. In your case you are missing the main core.img file and the config files in /boot/grub.

Use live mode and do the full chroot procedure to purge grub2 completely and reinstall it. Use my post #4 in this thread:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2073840

Only in your case, in the first command use /dev/sda3 instead of /dev/sda5 because your root is /dev/sda3.

As you can see from the reply in that thread, it works and confirmed. So, run the commands carefully, with the exact syntax, and if it doesn't work there is some specific issue with your machine. Including that you might be hit with the 137GB problem even if you don't think so.

Try the chroot grub2 reinstall first and lets see.

Sorry, I see the error in the code.

I tried the chroot grub2 reinstall, however the same message appears on reboot. So I restored the MBR using the Win recovery console.

I then took a spare drive and installed as a slave and installed 12.04 on sdb1 (mount point / and bootloader to /dev/sdb).

On reboot, setting the bios to boot from the slave brings up the grub multiboot menu with an option to boot 12.04 or WinXP. The 12.04 option works, but the WinXP option just hangs if selected, presumably because nothing was written to the MBR on sda.

If booted to 12.04 the NTFS partitions are visible in Nautilus along with sda3 which shows that the grub.cfg and core.img files are in the grub folder after the first reinstall. So one would conclude that the bios of the MB will not work with 12.04 when installing on a single disk as originally partitioned.

I therefore presume the partial functionality of dual boot on this box using 2 separate drives means the issue actually is the 137 gig boot limit.

At this point, the master drive was reset in the bios as the boot drive, the fakeraid array was connected to the MB and 12.04 was reinstalled from scratch on the same slave drive (sdb - mount point / and bootloader to /dev/sdb).

Ofter 12.04 install and on reboot, the system boots to XP normally, the fakeraid array is pristine and functions normally.

Rebooted and reconfigured the bios to make the slave the boot drive, booted 12.04 from the grub screen and all drives are visible. The fakeraid is visible as a single drive with no additonal command line input

Ctrl+Alt+T
sudo dmraid -ay

results in -
RAID set "pdc_ddbhgeedgg" already active
RAID set "pdc_ddbhgeedgg1" already active

writing to the raid array from within 12.04 functions normally.

Rebooting to XP (by reconfiguring the bios) shows the raid array continues to function without issues.

So at this point, I suppose the question is -

If I set sdb as the boot drive is there a way to use command line and put the small grub2 code on the MBR of sda so that multi boot using grub will actually function? - or am I stuck with using the bios to multi boot?

TIA

darkod
October 21st, 2012, 12:35 PM
If I understood correctly, now you only want to add grub2 to the MBR of /dev/sda, right?

If that is the case, boot the 12.04 as it is booting now (with sdb first option to boot). Once it's booted simply open terminal and do:
sudo grub-install /dev/sda

When you already have ubuntu booted, adding grub2 to another disk is simple with the above command, you don't need any further parameters (since the OS is already booted).

Tranas
October 21st, 2012, 01:00 PM
If I understood correctly, now you only want to add grub2 to the MBR of /dev/sda, right?

If that is the case, boot the 12.04 as it is booting now (with sdb first option to boot). Once it's booted simply open terminal and do:
sudo grub-install /dev/sda

When you already have ubuntu booted, adding grub2 to another disk is simple with the above command, you don't need any further parameters (since the OS is already booted).

You understood correctly.

Well, actually, it worked using

sudo mount /dev/sdb1 /mnt
sudo grub-install --root-directory=/mnt /dev/sda

and now the multi boot menu works as advertised.

long version, same result lol...

Once again Darko, I appreciate your assistance in resolving the issue.

darkod
October 21st, 2012, 01:05 PM
You understood correctly.

Well, actually, it worked using

sudo mount /dev/sdb1 /mnt
sudo grub-install --root-directory=/mnt /dev/sda

and now the multi boot menu works as advertised.

long version, same result lol...

Once again Darko, I appreciate your assistance in resolving the issue.

Yeah, that is used from live mode, because it doesn't know which is the root partition. So you have to mount it at some mount point with one command, and do the grub-install by specifying the --root-directory parameter.

When you have the system booted, it already knows what is the root partition because it's already running it from the hdd, so just doing grub-install /dev/sda is enough.

Both methods work. Glad you got it running at the end. :)

YannBuntu
October 23rd, 2012, 02:08 PM
Hello
Just a small comment on this:

„Boot-Repair-Disk“ is unable to find the OS, so I doubt the live CD version could do the repair if a dedicate Boot-Repair disk will not.

Boot-Repair-Disk includes a recent version of Boot-Repair, but old system packages (because it is based on Debian-stable).
In some situations (RAID, LVM..), it is necessary to use Boot-Repair from a recent distribution (eg Ubuntu-Secure-Remix (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuSecureRemix), which includes a recent Boot-Repair version and recent system packages as it is based on Ubuntu12.10).