If it is Fall 2001 it's probably SuSE 7.0 and "silo" would be correct.
Michael Coffin, VM Systems Programmer Internal Revenue Service - Room 6030 1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20224 Voice: (202) 927-4188 FAX: (202) 622-6726 [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----Original Message----- From: James Melin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 4:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Attempting first IPL after initial SuSE install I think it is 7.0. It's the fall 2001 media. I have no way of checking at the moment what version it thinks it installed. |---------+----------------------------> | | Coffin Michael C | | | <Michael.C.Coffin| | | @irs.gov> | | | Sent by: Linux on| | | 390 Port | | | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]| | | IST.EDU> | | | | | | | | | 03/11/2002 03:12 | | | PM | | | Please respond to| | | Linux on 390 Port| | | | |---------+----------------------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------| | | | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | cc: | | Subject: Re: Attempting first IPL after initial SuSE install | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------| Are you using SuSE 7.0 or 7.2? The "silo" command name changed to "zilo" in 7.2 I believe. Just checking. :) Michael Coffin, VM Systems Programmer Internal Revenue Service - Room 6030 1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20224 Voice: (202) 927-4188 FAX: (202) 622-6726 [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----Original Message----- From: James Melin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 3:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Attempting first IPL after initial SuSE install This could just me being neophytic but this was the silo command I used, while having my PWD as /mnt -t2 silo -f /mnt/boot/image -d /dev/dasda -p /mnt/boot/parmline -b /mnt/boot/ipleckd.boot I cant recall if my parm file was 'parmline' or 'parmfile' as I don't have the ramdisk image up right now. I do know I specified the correct file name on the command. I assume the name of the parameter file is not important. I verified that there was a kernal image called 'image' but I dunno if this is the correct kernal image or not. What is the name of the file that silo creates? My sysprog wants to see what is in this file, and he says it has to be a certain place on the disk? Is there anything that can screw up where this gets written to vs where it needs to be written to? I will try the chroot stuff and see if it helps but I can't see how it would change anything because of the explicit pathing I used in the silo command. Even after runnign the silo command I still get the subchannel status of 40 and device status of 0c |---------+----------------------------> | | "Post, Mark K" | | | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]| | | m> | | | Sent by: Linux on| | | 390 Port | | | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]| | | IST.EDU> | | | | | | | | | 03/11/2002 02:31 | | | PM | | | Please respond to| | | Linux on 390 Port| | | | |---------+----------------------------> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------| | | | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | cc: | | Subject: Re: Attempting first IPL after initial SuSE install | > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------| Jim, There have been some reports of problems with IPLs after initial installs, but they were against the Red Hat GA. What you can do is re-IPL your installation setup, mount the root file system on /mnt (for instance), then do a "chroot /mnt". From there, cd to /boot, and re-run the silo command. You should see something similar to this, which will indicate success: Silo:o->image set to /boot/image-2.2.16-122-tape Silo:o->ipldevice set to /dev/dasda Silo:o->parmfile set to /boot/par Silo:o->bootsect set to /boot/ipleckd.boot Silo:o->Testonly flag is now 0 Silo:o->Testlevel is set to 0 Silo:o->IPL device is:'/dev/dasda ' Silo:o->bootsector is:'/boot/ipleckd.boot '...ok... Silo:o->bootmap is:'/boot/image-2.2.16-122-tape ' ....ok... Silo:o->Kernel image is:'/boot/ipleckd.boot ' ....ok... Silo:o->original parameterfile is:'/boot/parm '...ok...final parameter parm is:'/boot/parm ' ....ok... Silo:ix 0:offset:078523 count:0c address 0x00000000 Silo:ix 1:offset:078530 count:80 address 0x0000c000 Silo:ix 2:offset:0785b0 count:80 address 0x0008c000 Silo:ix 3:offset:078630 count:6f address 0x0010c000 Silo:ix 4:offset:07a8de count:01 address 0x00008000 Silo:Bootmap is in block no:0x00001ed7 At that point, you should "exit" followed by "cd /" followed by "umount /mnt" followed by re-trying your IPL from the SE. Mark Post -----Original Message----- From: James Melin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 11:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Attempting first IPL after initial SuSE install Right. That's a semantic misnomer from my part. I said that because that's where the LPAR is told what load device to run from is. The thing is that the ramdisk image worked and accessed the devices properly. Should I manually run a silo command with the T2 option specified? I am unsure if YaST did that all properly. Thanks for the info on the subchannel status. That give me someplace to start. Jim: The device status is Channel End + Device End, which is normal. The subchannel status is Incorrect Length, which may indicate that you have something wrong with your image on disk. The associated channel program should start at absolute location 8. See "Initial Program Loading" in the Principles of Operation for details. You aren't booting "from" the SE, by the way. You're booting via the SE from DASD. The SE is just the messenger. Romney On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 10:05:22 -0600 James Melin said: >Has anyone seen this message on the SE console when attempting to ipl a >freshly installed Linux? > >The load control unit or device is busy. Device status is 0C and >subchannel status is 40. > >This is in a G5 with Ficon to a ficon director and from there into an IBM >'shark' dasd box. > >I'm having trouble finding the device status codes and subchannel status >codes as they might pertain to an initial load from the service element.
