Re: Invalid partition table after installation (GOOD NEWS!)

2010-01-23 Thread Ian Smith
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, John wrote: On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 05:34:10PM +1100, Ian Smith wrote: In freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 294, Issue 12, Message 19 On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:35:21 -0600 John j...@starfire.mn.org wrote: [..] OK! Well! Good news! After a sort. I

Re: Invalid partition table after installation

2010-01-22 Thread Fbsd1
John wrote: On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:25:26PM +0800, Fbsd1 wrote: John wrote: On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 04:38:22PM +0800, Fbsd1 wrote: John wrote: I've tried the modern BIOS geometry and the 255 head geometry. I've ensured that the first slice (boot slice) is smaller than 1.5 Gb. I've tried

Re: Invalid partition table after installation

2010-01-22 Thread John
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 08:16:59PM +0800, Fbsd1 wrote: John wrote: On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:25:26PM +0800, Fbsd1 wrote: John wrote: On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 04:38:22PM +0800, Fbsd1 wrote: John wrote: I've tried the modern BIOS geometry and the 255 head geometry. I've ensured that the

Re: Invalid partition table after installation

2010-01-22 Thread John
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 06:36:14AM -0600, John wrote: On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 08:16:59PM +0800, Fbsd1 wrote: John wrote: On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:25:26PM +0800, Fbsd1 wrote: John wrote: On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 04:38:22PM +0800, Fbsd1 wrote: John wrote: I've tried the modern

Re: Invalid partition table after installation

2010-01-22 Thread Fbsd1
John wrote: On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 06:36:14AM -0600, John wrote: On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 08:16:59PM +0800, Fbsd1 wrote: John wrote: On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:25:26PM +0800, Fbsd1 wrote: John wrote: On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 04:38:22PM +0800, Fbsd1 wrote: John wrote: I've tried the modern

Re: Invalid partition table after installation (GOOD NEWS!)

2010-01-22 Thread John
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 07:27:56AM -0600, John wrote: On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 06:36:14AM -0600, John wrote: On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 08:16:59PM +0800, Fbsd1 wrote: John wrote: On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:25:26PM +0800, Fbsd1 wrote: John wrote: On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 04:38:22PM

Re: Invalid partition table after installation (GOOD NEWS!)

2010-01-22 Thread John
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 08:09:50AM -0600, John wrote: On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 07:27:56AM -0600, John wrote: On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 06:36:14AM -0600, John wrote: On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 08:16:59PM +0800, Fbsd1 wrote: John wrote: On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:25:26PM +0800, Fbsd1 wrote:

Re: Invalid partition table after installation (GOOD NEWS!)

2010-01-22 Thread John
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:01:02AM -0600, John wrote: On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 08:09:50AM -0600, John wrote: On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 07:27:56AM -0600, John wrote: On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 06:36:14AM -0600, John wrote: On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 08:16:59PM +0800, Fbsd1 wrote: John wrote:

Re: Invalid partition table after installation (GOOD NEWS!)

2010-01-22 Thread John
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 04:35:21PM -0600, John wrote: On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:01:02AM -0600, John wrote: On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 08:09:50AM -0600, John wrote: On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 07:27:56AM -0600, John wrote: On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 06:36:14AM -0600, John wrote: On Fri, Jan

Re: Invalid partition table after installation (GOOD NEWS!)

2010-01-22 Thread Tim Judd
SNIP OK - my current best theory is that if the Standard boot manager is faced with anything other than exactly 1 bootable slice (partition to it), it defaults to Invalid partition table. I'll bet anyone lunch that this is true. Any takers? I've read before: the standard bootloader

Re: Invalid partition table after installation (GOOD NEWS!)

2010-01-22 Thread Fbsd1
John wrote: On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 04:35:21PM -0600, John wrote: On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:01:02AM -0600, John wrote: On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 08:09:50AM -0600, John wrote: On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 07:27:56AM -0600, John wrote: On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 06:36:14AM -0600, John wrote: On Fri,

Re: Invalid partition table after installation (GOOD NEWS!)

2010-01-22 Thread Ian Smith
In freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 294, Issue 12, Message 19 On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:35:21 -0600 John j...@starfire.mn.org wrote: [..] OK! Well! Good news! After a sort. I switched to BootMgr, and it came right up with 8.0! Slight downside - extra prompt during boot, and of

Re: Invalid partition table after installation (GOOD NEWS!)

2010-01-22 Thread John
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 05:34:10PM +1100, Ian Smith wrote: In freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 294, Issue 12, Message 19 On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:35:21 -0600 John j...@starfire.mn.org wrote: [..] OK! Well! Good news! After a sort. I switched to BootMgr, and it came right up with

Invalid partition table after installation

2010-01-21 Thread John
I've tried the modern BIOS geometry and the 255 head geometry. I've ensured that the first slice (boot slice) is smaller than 1.5 Gb. I've tried to figure out what the BIOS thinks the geometry is, but it doesn't seem to want to tell me. At least, I can't find it in the BIOS menu anywhere. When

Re: Invalid partition table after installation

2010-01-21 Thread Andreas Rudisch
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 01:47:59 -0600 John j...@starfire.mn.org wrote: Suggestions, please? I'm making zero headway right now. :( Maybe it is just me, but somehow I am missing the problem / question. Andreas -- GnuPG key : 0x2A573565|http://www.gnupg.org/howtos/de/ Fingerprint: 925D

Re: Invalid partition table after installation

2010-01-21 Thread Fbsd1
John wrote: I've tried the modern BIOS geometry and the 255 head geometry. I've ensured that the first slice (boot slice) is smaller than 1.5 Gb. I've tried to figure out what the BIOS thinks the geometry is, but it doesn't seem to want to tell me. At least, I can't find it in the BIOS menu

Re: Invalid partition table after installation

2010-01-21 Thread John
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 04:38:22PM +0800, Fbsd1 wrote: John wrote: I've tried the modern BIOS geometry and the 255 head geometry. I've ensured that the first slice (boot slice) is smaller than 1.5 Gb. I've tried to figure out what the BIOS thinks the geometry is, but it doesn't seem to