Re: booting problem
I booted from dvd. I used it becuase it had the uefi files on it. I used fdisk to check the install hd. It was still set to gpt but i set it again anyway. I could not find any way in the bios to switch between uefi and bios mode. After I rebooted the normal settings were there but they were messed up. I chose the Centos 8 option and I got a grub menu listing Windows followed by Fedora 31. I had upgraded to Fedora 32 several weeks ago and no longer had Fedora 31. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: booting problem
On 4/6/20 12:53 am, Jonathan Billings wrote: On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 12:52:05AM -0400, doug.lindqu...@atlanticbb.net wrote: I recently tried to install Centos 8 on my 3tb uefi hd that already had Fedora 32 and Windows 10 on it. The Centos installation did not finish because it could install the boot loader. It ended up screwing up the uefi boot because it will no longer boot to anything. It looks like the bios reset to non uefi boot only. My mb is Gigabyte B450 Auros with 64gb mem. Did you install via an USB or CD/DVD? Did you boot the installer via legacy boot (extlinux) or UEFI (grub2)? It'll install the bootloader that was used to boot the install medium. Just further to Jonathan's questions, if the motherboard bios has indeed switched from UEFI to legacy you should be able to go into the bios settings and change it back to UEFI, how this is done depends on the motherboard. It also sounds like the Centos installer you are booting may be a legacy installer, in which case you might be better off obtaining a live cd/dvd of a Centos UEFI system. regards, Steve ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: booting problem
On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 12:52:05AM -0400, doug.lindqu...@atlanticbb.net wrote: > I recently tried to install Centos 8 on my 3tb uefi hd that already had > Fedora 32 and Windows 10 on it. The Centos installation did not finish > because it could install the boot loader. It ended up screwing up the uefi > boot because it will no longer boot to anything. It looks like the bios > reset to non uefi boot only. My mb is Gigabyte B450 Auros with 64gb mem. Did you install via an USB or CD/DVD? Did you boot the installer via legacy boot (extlinux) or UEFI (grub2)? It'll install the bootloader that was used to boot the install medium. -- Jonathan Billings ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
booting problem
I recently tried to install Centos 8 on my 3tb uefi hd that already had Fedora 32 and Windows 10 on it. The Centos installation did not finish because it could install the boot loader. It ended up screwing up the uefi boot because it will no longer boot to anything. It looks like the bios reset to non uefi boot only. My mb is Gigabyte B450 Auros with 64gb mem. ' Doug Lindquist oug.lindqu...@atlanticbb.net ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 07/02/2015 12:02 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Rick Stevens wrote: Simply nulling bytes 510 and 511 of the first sector (getting rid of the boot signature) should make the BIOS ignore the drive. That signature applies to the entire MBR, including the partition scheme. The signature is not a "boot me" signature. GRUB probably shouldn't honor that MBR as valid, including its partition scheme. I don't know if it does or not. The kernel won't, and therefore won't see the partitions, and neither will libblkid. fdisk will complain that the partition table is invalid because of the invalid boot signature, but that's all. The rest of the drive should be functional and usable--just not bootable. This is not correct. Tagging a partition as "bootable" only affects Microsoft OSes. This is not completely correct. It depends on what boot code is in the MBR. GRUB boot.img doesn't use the active bit. But parted's code does, as does syslinux/extlinux. I confirm 2 things: 1. the drive is indeed skipped 2. linux cannot see any partitions, so nothing gets mounted. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 1:27 PM, jd1008 wrote: > > > On 07/02/2015 12:02 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Rick Stevens >> wrote: >> >>> Simply nulling bytes 510 and 511 of the first sector (getting rid >>> of the boot signature) should make the BIOS ignore the drive. >> >> That signature applies to the entire MBR, including the partition >> scheme. The signature is not a "boot me" signature. >> >> GRUB probably shouldn't honor that MBR as valid, including its >> partition scheme. I don't know if it does or not. The kernel won't, >> and therefore won't see the partitions, and neither will libblkid. >> >> >> >> fdisk >>> >>> will complain that the partition table is invalid because of the >>> invalid boot signature, but that's all. The rest of the drive should >>> be functional and usable--just not bootable. >> >> This is not correct. >> >> >>> Tagging a partition as "bootable" only affects Microsoft OSes. >> >> This is not completely correct. It depends on what boot code is in the >> MBR. GRUB boot.img doesn't use the active bit. But parted's code does, >> as does syslinux/extlinux. >> >> > What a convoluted frickin' mess!! And it will always be that way, frozen in the time in which it was invented. And hence there's UEFI. So try reading the UEFI spec. It's vastly more complex, with tons more bugs in the implementations, but the spec itself is not difficult to follow (although it's nearly 2300 pages long so that might make it difficult, just not difficult to follow - it's fairly well organized and hey at least it's documented unlike BIOS). -- Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 07/02/2015 12:02 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Rick Stevens wrote: Simply nulling bytes 510 and 511 of the first sector (getting rid of the boot signature) should make the BIOS ignore the drive. That signature applies to the entire MBR, including the partition scheme. The signature is not a "boot me" signature. GRUB probably shouldn't honor that MBR as valid, including its partition scheme. I don't know if it does or not. The kernel won't, and therefore won't see the partitions, and neither will libblkid. fdisk will complain that the partition table is invalid because of the invalid boot signature, but that's all. The rest of the drive should be functional and usable--just not bootable. This is not correct. Tagging a partition as "bootable" only affects Microsoft OSes. This is not completely correct. It depends on what boot code is in the MBR. GRUB boot.img doesn't use the active bit. But parted's code does, as does syslinux/extlinux. What a convoluted frickin' mess!! -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Rick Stevens wrote: > Simply nulling bytes 510 and 511 of the first sector (getting rid > of the boot signature) should make the BIOS ignore the drive. That signature applies to the entire MBR, including the partition scheme. The signature is not a "boot me" signature. GRUB probably shouldn't honor that MBR as valid, including its partition scheme. I don't know if it does or not. The kernel won't, and therefore won't see the partitions, and neither will libblkid. fdisk > will complain that the partition table is invalid because of the > invalid boot signature, but that's all. The rest of the drive should > be functional and usable--just not bootable. This is not correct. > > Tagging a partition as "bootable" only affects Microsoft OSes. This is not completely correct. It depends on what boot code is in the MBR. GRUB boot.img doesn't use the active bit. But parted's code does, as does syslinux/extlinux. -- Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 07/02/2015 10:56 AM, Rick Stevens wrote: On 07/01/2015 02:39 PM, jd1008 wrote: On 07/01/2015 03:14 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote: On 2015-06-30 19:01, jd1008 wrote: So, how can I proceed with a brand new drive, dd /dev/zero into the first ... say 4K bytes, partition it with fdisk, do not mark any partition bootable, so that bios will skip over it ? Don't know why no one's mentioned this, but... you could always just install an actual bootloader on the drive that boots from the device from which you really want to boot. (I think you can do this with grub...) Of course, plugging that drive into any other computer might make for an interesting experience :-). I am sorry - but ... the design and implementation of the traditional (msdos) scheme and ( from what I understand so far from all the respondents), even gpt, effectively render the disk to have a signature which BIOS interprets as a valid partition table AND as bootable, and thus hangs there looking for what does not exist. Why the design mixed 2 different things into 1, I have no idea. But AFAIAC, it sucks and blows atthe same time. Theoretically, supose I want my PC to have 2 identical drives, partitioned identically, both bootable. Say the boot order is cd-rom, drive A, then drive B. CD-rom is empty, bios moves on to drive A. Somehow drive A's boot code is corrupt (say somehow all nulled). PC will never move on to drive B. So, instead of fixing the issue, we invent new, complex schemes that require even more complex SW like VM's, LVM's, etc etc.. to solve a problem created by a very silly error: partitioned means bootable as far as BIOS is concerned. At least, that is what I have come to understand and experience (when I removed the boot signature bytes). Simply nulling bytes 510 and 511 of the first sector (getting rid of the boot signature) should make the BIOS ignore the drive. fdisk will complain that the partition table is invalid because of the invalid boot signature, but that's all. The rest of the drive should be functional and usable--just not bootable. Tagging a partition as "bootable" only affects Microsoft OSes. The boot loader itself doesn't care. What that boot loader loads and hands control to--THAT might care about the bootable flag. The Linux kernel ignores it. Will try and get back to you. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 07/01/2015 02:39 PM, jd1008 wrote: On 07/01/2015 03:14 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote: On 2015-06-30 19:01, jd1008 wrote: So, how can I proceed with a brand new drive, dd /dev/zero into the first ... say 4K bytes, partition it with fdisk, do not mark any partition bootable, so that bios will skip over it ? Don't know why no one's mentioned this, but... you could always just install an actual bootloader on the drive that boots from the device from which you really want to boot. (I think you can do this with grub...) Of course, plugging that drive into any other computer might make for an interesting experience :-). I am sorry - but ... the design and implementation of the traditional (msdos) scheme and ( from what I understand so far from all the respondents), even gpt, effectively render the disk to have a signature which BIOS interprets as a valid partition table AND as bootable, and thus hangs there looking for what does not exist. Why the design mixed 2 different things into 1, I have no idea. But AFAIAC, it sucks and blows atthe same time. Theoretically, supose I want my PC to have 2 identical drives, partitioned identically, both bootable. Say the boot order is cd-rom, drive A, then drive B. CD-rom is empty, bios moves on to drive A. Somehow drive A's boot code is corrupt (say somehow all nulled). PC will never move on to drive B. So, instead of fixing the issue, we invent new, complex schemes that require even more complex SW like VM's, LVM's, etc etc.. to solve a problem created by a very silly error: partitioned means bootable as far as BIOS is concerned. At least, that is what I have come to understand and experience (when I removed the boot signature bytes). Simply nulling bytes 510 and 511 of the first sector (getting rid of the boot signature) should make the BIOS ignore the drive. fdisk will complain that the partition table is invalid because of the invalid boot signature, but that's all. The rest of the drive should be functional and usable--just not bootable. Tagging a partition as "bootable" only affects Microsoft OSes. The boot loader itself doesn't care. What that boot loader loads and hands control to--THAT might care about the bootable flag. The Linux kernel ignores it. -- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigitalri...@alldigital.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 226437340 Yahoo: origrps2 - -- - Animal testing is futile. They always get nervous and give the - - wrong answers - -- -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 07/01/2015 05:36 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 4:37 PM, jd1008 wrote: So, let me ask a simple question. Technically (I mean programatically), how difficult is it to fix both BIOS and fdisk so that unless a partition is marked as bootable, the partition table will not contain the boot signature and BIOS will still accept the partitioning scheme, but move on to the next drive in the boot order? The problem isn't with fdisk. If there's a problem it's that this BIOS instance isn't smart enough to qualify the MBR it received, fail it for $REASONS, and then ask for the MBR from the next device in sequence. Answers in no particular order, sorta tongue in cheek, being the deviloper's advocate (pun intended): - Learn assembly, get hired to a company that OEMs firmware, fix and advocate pushing it to users. (i.e. I think this is hard to do and management would probably say no it's not worth the money resources for this.) - We have already done exactly this, it's called UEFI. - We have already done exactly this, it's called coreboot, maybe your system can use that? (Actually, I've never used coreboot, I don't know that it will qualify an MBR and do a fallback as described.) If I had a standalone tool on a bootable CD to use to save current BIOS, flash one that could do the right sequencing, and if it did not work, I would then use the standalone tool to restore the saved BIOS. I know of no such tool that would work on the Dell E6500 series laptops. One almost needs to be able to pull out existing rom, insert the rom of the bios you suggest, and try it. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 4:37 PM, jd1008 wrote: > So, let me ask a simple question. > Technically (I mean programatically), how difficult is it to > fix both BIOS and fdisk so that unless a partition is marked > as bootable, the partition table will not contain the boot signature > and BIOS will still accept the partitioning scheme, but > move on to the next drive in the boot order? The problem isn't with fdisk. If there's a problem it's that this BIOS instance isn't smart enough to qualify the MBR it received, fail it for $REASONS, and then ask for the MBR from the next device in sequence. Answers in no particular order, sorta tongue in cheek, being the deviloper's advocate (pun intended): - Learn assembly, get hired to a company that OEMs firmware, fix and advocate pushing it to users. (i.e. I think this is hard to do and management would probably say no it's not worth the money resources for this.) - We have already done exactly this, it's called UEFI. - We have already done exactly this, it's called coreboot, maybe your system can use that? (Actually, I've never used coreboot, I don't know that it will qualify an MBR and do a fallback as described.) -- Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 07/01/2015 04:32 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 3:39 PM, jd1008 wrote: On 07/01/2015 03:14 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote: On 2015-06-30 19:01, jd1008 wrote: So, how can I proceed with a brand new drive, dd /dev/zero into the first ... say 4K bytes, partition it with fdisk, do not mark any partition bootable, so that bios will skip over it ? Don't know why no one's mentioned this, but... you could always just install an actual bootloader on the drive that boots from the device from which you really want to boot. (I think you can do this with grub...) Of course, plugging that drive into any other computer might make for an interesting experience :-). I am sorry - but ... the design and implementation of the traditional (msdos) scheme and ( from what I understand so far from all the respondents), even gpt, effectively render the disk to have a signature which BIOS interprets as a valid partition table AND as bootable, and thus hangs there looking for what does not exist. Why the design mixed 2 different things into 1, I have no idea. But AFAIAC, it sucks and blows atthe same time. Well, MBR stands for master boot record. It stands to reason, in the epoch in which it and BIOS were invented, that you'd only use MBR if you want to boot a system. Once computers and drives got cheap enough, and in particular drives got big enough, is when the mortal user with a budget usurped MBR to do only partitioning. So, let me ask a simple question. Technically (I mean programatically), how difficult is it to fix both BIOS and fdisk so that unless a partition is marked as bootable, the partition table will not contain the boot signature and BIOS will still accept the partitioning scheme, but move on to the next drive in the boot order? Thanx. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 3:39 PM, jd1008 wrote: > > > On 07/01/2015 03:14 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote: >> >> On 2015-06-30 19:01, jd1008 wrote: >>> >>> So, how can I proceed with a brand new drive, >>> dd /dev/zero into the first ... say 4K bytes, partition >>> it with fdisk, do not mark any partition bootable, so >>> that bios will skip over it ? >> >> Don't know why no one's mentioned this, but... you could always just >> install an actual bootloader on the drive that boots from the device >> from which you really want to boot. (I think you can do this with grub...) >> >> Of course, plugging that drive into any other computer might make for an >> interesting experience :-). >> > I am sorry - but ... > the design and implementation of the traditional > (msdos) scheme and ( from what I understand so far > from all the respondents), even gpt, effectively render > the disk to have a signature which BIOS interprets > as a valid partition table AND as bootable, and thus > hangs there looking for what does not exist. > > Why the design mixed 2 different things into 1, I have > no idea. But AFAIAC, it sucks and blows atthe same time. Well, MBR stands for master boot record. It stands to reason, in the epoch in which it and BIOS were invented, that you'd only use MBR if you want to boot a system. Once computers and drives got cheap enough, and in particular drives got big enough, is when the mortal user with a budget usurped MBR to do only partitioning. -- Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 07/01/2015 03:14 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote: On 2015-06-30 19:01, jd1008 wrote: So, how can I proceed with a brand new drive, dd /dev/zero into the first ... say 4K bytes, partition it with fdisk, do not mark any partition bootable, so that bios will skip over it ? Don't know why no one's mentioned this, but... you could always just install an actual bootloader on the drive that boots from the device from which you really want to boot. (I think you can do this with grub...) Of course, plugging that drive into any other computer might make for an interesting experience :-). I am sorry - but ... the design and implementation of the traditional (msdos) scheme and ( from what I understand so far from all the respondents), even gpt, effectively render the disk to have a signature which BIOS interprets as a valid partition table AND as bootable, and thus hangs there looking for what does not exist. Why the design mixed 2 different things into 1, I have no idea. But AFAIAC, it sucks and blows atthe same time. Theoretically, supose I want my PC to have 2 identical drives, partitioned identically, both bootable. Say the boot order is cd-rom, drive A, then drive B. CD-rom is empty, bios moves on to drive A. Somehow drive A's boot code is corrupt (say somehow all nulled). PC will never move on to drive B. So, instead of fixing the issue, we invent new, complex schemes that require even more complex SW like VM's, LVM's, etc etc.. to solve a problem created by a very silly error: partitioned means bootable as far as BIOS is concerned. At least, that is what I have come to understand and experience (when I removed the boot signature bytes). -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 2015-06-30 19:01, jd1008 wrote: > So, how can I proceed with a brand new drive, > dd /dev/zero into the first ... say 4K bytes, partition > it with fdisk, do not mark any partition bootable, so > that bios will skip over it ? Don't know why no one's mentioned this, but... you could always just install an actual bootloader on the drive that boots from the device from which you really want to boot. (I think you can do this with grub...) Of course, plugging that drive into any other computer might make for an interesting experience :-). -- Matthew -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/30/2015 06:04 PM, jd1008 wrote: On 06/30/2015 05:59 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: Actually, another option is to put the legacy OS into a VM where it can then inherit some of the features of Linux, including LVM support. Then you can LVM this external drive instead of partitioning it, and then make an LV (or two or three or whatever) to use as backing for the VM, and then those VMs will see each LV as a drive, which you can partition and format with that legacy OS's tools however you want. Or use qcow2. Lots of options. Very interesting. Very worth trying out. Thanx!! This being an MSDOS partition you're talking about, there is a concept in the Windows world known as an active partition. I don't know if it is germane to this discussion, so I haven't raised it until now. Microsoft's CLI took for manipulating disk partitions is a called diskpart. The online documentation for diskpart says this about active partitions: active On basic disks, marks the partition with focus as active. This informs the basic input/output system (BIOS) or Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI) that the partition or volume is a valid system partition or system volume Only partitions can be marked as active. Important DiskPart verifies only that the partition is capable of containing an operating system's startup files. DiskPart does not check the contents of the partition. If you mistakenly mark a partition as "active" and it does not contain the operating system's startup files, your computer might not start. I have no idea about the mechanics of active partitions (i.e., which bits get flipped to make a partition "active") It may be what you have been discussing all along, but I thought I but this on the table. Seems to me that if you mark a partition as not active, the BIOS will not try to boot from it. Or not. Ignorance is my superpower RBM -- -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > Actually, another option is to put the legacy OS into a VM where it > can then inherit some of the features of Linux, including LVM support. > Then you can LVM this external drive instead of partitioning it, and > then make an LV (or two or three or whatever) to use as backing for > the VM, and then those VMs will see each LV as a drive, which you can > partition and format with that legacy OS's tools however you want. Or > use qcow2. Lots of options. Plus as a legacy OS, it's reasonable to assume it has unpatched security vulnerability that will never be fixed. It's not fore sure safer to run it in a VM, it depends on the configuration of course, but you have the ability to better isolate it than if it's running baremetal. -- Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/30/2015 05:59 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: Actually, another option is to put the legacy OS into a VM where it can then inherit some of the features of Linux, including LVM support. Then you can LVM this external drive instead of partitioning it, and then make an LV (or two or three or whatever) to use as backing for the VM, and then those VMs will see each LV as a drive, which you can partition and format with that legacy OS's tools however you want. Or use qcow2. Lots of options. Very interesting. Very worth trying out. Thanx!! -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
Actually, another option is to put the legacy OS into a VM where it can then inherit some of the features of Linux, including LVM support. Then you can LVM this external drive instead of partitioning it, and then make an LV (or two or three or whatever) to use as backing for the VM, and then those VMs will see each LV as a drive, which you can partition and format with that legacy OS's tools however you want. Or use qcow2. Lots of options. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/30/2015 05:42 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 5:38 PM, jd1008 wrote: On 06/30/2015 05:33 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: So you could dd 512 bytes of /dev/zero to the drive, or use "wipefs -a /dev/sdX", then use parted to "mktable gpt" and set up partitions. That will not work. Parted replaces the PMBR in such a case. So does gdisk. wipefs -a after parted or gdisk will cause both PMBR and GPT primary and backup headers to be invalidated. So to wipe or invalidate the PMBR has to be done with dd. OK, so after I partition with parted, I clobber the first 512 byte sector with zeros, then the drive will retain partitioning info? GPT partitioning info, yes. If you're using an OS that doesn't know what GPT is (?) then you have just two options remaining which is BIOS boot order or the one time boot menu. Sigh Thanx! -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 5:43 PM, jd1008 wrote: >> What OS are you booting that won't read GPT? > > It is an OS that existed before GPT I still use it > because it has purchased SW that is too expensive to replace > with versions for more modern OS. > `nough said :) :) > Full circle. Now you know that you will just have to keep on doing what you've been doing: use the one time boot menu, or change the BIOS boot order. -- Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 5:38 PM, jd1008 wrote: > > > On 06/30/2015 05:33 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Gordon Messmer >> wrote: >> >>> So you could dd 512 bytes of /dev/zero to the drive, or use "wipefs -a >>> /dev/sdX", then use parted to "mktable gpt" and set up partitions. >> >> That will not work. Parted replaces the PMBR in such a case. So does >> gdisk. >> >> wipefs -a after parted or gdisk will cause both PMBR and GPT primary >> and backup headers to be invalidated. So to wipe or invalidate the >> PMBR has to be done with dd. >> >> > OK, so after I partition with parted, I clobber the first 512 byte sector > with zeros, then the drive will retain partitioning info? GPT partitioning info, yes. If you're using an OS that doesn't know what GPT is (?) then you have just two options remaining which is BIOS boot order or the one time boot menu. -- Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/30/2015 05:38 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: On 06/30/2015 04:11 PM, jd1008 wrote: Since my internal drive is dual boot, I do need to boot an OS that does not recognize GPT :( What OS are you booting that won't read GPT? It is an OS that existed before GPT I still use it because it has purchased SW that is too expensive to replace with versions for more modern OS. `nough said :) :) -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/30/2015 04:33 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: That will not work. Parted replaces the PMBR in such a case. So does gdisk. Today I learned too many things. Thanks, Chris. :) -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/30/2015 05:33 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: So you could dd 512 bytes of /dev/zero to the drive, or use "wipefs -a /dev/sdX", then use parted to "mktable gpt" and set up partitions. That will not work. Parted replaces the PMBR in such a case. So does gdisk. wipefs -a after parted or gdisk will cause both PMBR and GPT primary and backup headers to be invalidated. So to wipe or invalidate the PMBR has to be done with dd. OK, so after I partition with parted, I clobber the first 512 byte sector with zeros, then the drive will retain partitioning info? -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/30/2015 04:11 PM, jd1008 wrote: Since my internal drive is dual boot, I do need to boot an OS that does not recognize GPT :( What OS are you booting that won't read GPT? -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 5:28 PM, jd1008 wrote: > I wonder if BIOS manufacturer's are reading this list and taking note :) :) They have and they say to upgrade to UEFI. This is a very long thread just to arrive at the conclusion that BIOS behavior isn't ideal for your use case. The expectation is that you set the BIOS boot order literally with the order of devices you boot from most often so that less often is the need to use the one time boot selection menu. If you want to skip the USB disk usually, then make the internal drive default. Simple. I don't know why you don't do that. -- Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/30/2015 04:10 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: However, also based on testing, it seems that if you used GPT for your >partitions, then BIOS would skip over the drive during the boot process. No because every GPT creator also creates a PMBR which includes the MBR boot signature that you're telling us causes (some) BIOS's to use the entire MBR and then hang if it has nowhere to go. I see. Thanks for the correction, Chris. This whole conversation has been educational. :) -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: > So you could dd 512 bytes of /dev/zero to the drive, or use "wipefs -a > /dev/sdX", then use parted to "mktable gpt" and set up partitions. That will not work. Parted replaces the PMBR in such a case. So does gdisk. wipefs -a after parted or gdisk will cause both PMBR and GPT primary and backup headers to be invalidated. So to wipe or invalidate the PMBR has to be done with dd. -- Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/30/2015 03:41 PM, jd1008 wrote: So, it begs the question: No it doesn't, it asks the question. Begging the question means something entirely different (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question) and the fact that many people misuse it that way doesn't change the meaning. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/30/2015 04:13 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Tue, 2015-06-30 at 17:11 -0600, jd1008 wrote: So, it begs the question: (that's not what "begs the question" means) For my case it does cause me to ask : The conundrum of my situation does indeed lead me to ask that question. If you think it does not mean that - then please enlighten everyone as to what it means :) :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question *nod* The phrase "begs the question" refers to a logical fallacy. In this context, the question was not "begged," it was "raised." -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/30/2015 05:13 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Tue, 2015-06-30 at 17:11 -0600, jd1008 wrote: So, it begs the question: (that's not what "begs the question" means) For my case it does cause me to ask : The conundrum of my situation does indeed lead me to ask that question. If you think it does not mean that - then please enlighten everyone as to what it means :) :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question poc :) My use of it was aimed against BIOS and not against the respondent :) If BIOS will not skip over unbootable drives, and it supposedly is written to skip over non-bootable drives - yet it does not in the situation I present, then that exposes the fallacy of bios skipping over non bootable drives. Then it is made apparent by the respondents that I cannot create non-bootable partitions in a drive using fdisk or even parted - and have bios skip over such drives within a boot sequence. So in effect the partitioning scheme may be at fault to encode a boot signature where no boot code is present, nor any partition marked as bootable. LVM was mentioned as a possible way to avoid this. But the other OS cannot use LVM. I wonder if BIOS manufacturer's are reading this list and taking note :) :) -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/30/2015 04:01 PM, jd1008 wrote: So, how can I proceed with a brand new drive, dd /dev/zero into the first ... say 4K bytes, partition it with fdisk, do not mark any partition bootable, so that bios will skip over it ? Based on testing, it looks like any use of MBR will cause your BIOS to pass control to the boot sector on the drive. So you could dd 512 bytes of /dev/zero to the drive, or use "wipefs -a /dev/sdX", then use parted to "mktable gpt" and set up partitions. Assuming that you need to access the drive from a non-Linux system. If it's Linux-only, then you have additional options like making the whole drive an LVM PV, as Chris pointed out. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
UEFI spec 2.4.0 suggests the PMBR is optional. 5.2.3 "A Protective MBR may be located at LBA 0 (i.e. the first logical block) of the disk if it is using the GPT disk layout. The Protective MBR precedes the GUID Partition Table Header to maintain compatibility with existing tools that do not understand GPT partition structures." Also as a matter if trivia, the UEFI spec defines the boot code region of the PMBR as 440 bytes. Table 15. Naturally GRUB's code length differs from the UEFI spec. Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 5:13 PM, jd1008 wrote: > OMG!!! > LVM!!! > The other OS will most certainly NOT be able to make use > of that drive :) :) OK so you have two options. -Change the BIOS boot order. - Use GPT and after making all changes either zero out LBA 0 or otherwise invalidate the MBR's signature. -- Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 06/30/2015 03:18 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> 2. The most likely explanation for the problem, as someone else >> alluded to, is the USB drive has stale bootloader code on it that >> points to no where and hangs. > > > One of jd's earlier messages included the boot sector. It was mostly nul > bytes. > >> The solution is to do one of two things: change the boot order in >> BIOS; or zero the first 440 bytes of LBA 0 with this: >> # dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdX bs=440 count=1 > > > Why 440? The boot sector is 446 bytes. The boot loader code area is variably sized depending on what writes it out. GRUB's is 446 bytes. But syslinux and variants are 440 bytes, and the parted code is maybe half that size. So wiping out 440 bytes is sufficient but there's nothing wrong with wiping out 446 bytes. Also, "the boot sector" is the same thing as LBA 0, which is the same thing as MBR, in the present context. A sector is 512 bytes. -- Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/30/2015 03:18 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: 2. The most likely explanation for the problem, as someone else alluded to, is the USB drive has stale bootloader code on it that points to no where and hangs. One of jd's earlier messages included the boot sector. It was mostly nul bytes. The solution is to do one of two things: change the boot order in BIOS; or zero the first 440 bytes of LBA 0 with this: # dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdX bs=440 count=1 Why 440? The boot sector is 446 bytes. We've already established that his BIOS will attempt to boot the system when the first 440 bytes are zeros. That was the situation we've been discussing all thread long. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/30/2015 05:10 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: On 06/30/2015 03:41 PM, jd1008 wrote: So, it begs the question: (that's not what "begs the question" means) Yes. It's an accusation. Can I create a disk with msdos partitioning scheme, none of the partitions marked as bootable, and have bios quickly skip over it to the next device in the boot sequence? So far it looks like the answer is "no" or "it depends on your BIOS." Both SeaBIOS and your Dell BIOS, based on what we've seen, will attempt to use the boot sector of a disk with a valid MBR, even when the boot sector is all zeros. That's consistent with all of the documentation I can find. It's possible that other BIOS might skip an all-zero boot sector, but we don't have any documentation of which systems behave that way. That seems to be true. However, also based on testing, it seems that if you used GPT for your partitions, then BIOS would skip over the drive during the boot process. No because every GPT creator also creates a PMBR which includes the MBR boot signature that you're telling us causes (some) BIOS's to use the entire MBR and then hang if it has nowhere to go. So, maybe that's a solution? The only reasons I can think of to use MBR are a) you have an operating system that can't read GPT and b) you need to boot from the drive under BIOS. I don't think either of those apply to you. If you have such a BIOS, the work around is to not partition it either MBR or GPT. If it needs partitioning, use LVM on the whole block device. It has a signature the BIOS won't know about. OMG!!! LVM!!! The other OS will most certainly NOT be able to make use of that drive :) :) -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On Tue, 2015-06-30 at 17:11 -0600, jd1008 wrote: > >> So, it begs the question: > > > > (that's not what "begs the question" means) > For my case it does cause me to ask : The conundrum of my situation > does indeed lead me to ask that question. > If you think it does not mean that - then please enlighten everyone > as to what it means :) :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question poc -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
Yet another possibility is to GPT partition the disk and then zero LBA 0 (the PMBR). Now to any MBR only utility, it will appear to be a blank drive and hence dangerously unprotected. But, being lazy I won't go look for this, I don't think the UEFI spec requires a PMBR on GPT disks, it can just have GPT only structures. But the PMBR is what all utilities use and will recreate if removed and the partition map is altered. So you're probably better off just using LVM if Linux only. If mixed platform, and you have to partition, then you have to change the BIOS boot order. Use the one time boot order change menu when you want to boot off an external, otherwise leave the first device as the internal drive. Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/30/2015 05:02 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: On 06/30/2015 03:41 PM, jd1008 wrote: So, it begs the question: (that's not what "begs the question" means) For my case it does cause me to ask : The conundrum of my situation does indeed lead me to ask that question. If you think it does not mean that - then please enlighten everyone as to what it means :) :) Can I create a disk with msdos partitioning scheme, none of the partitions marked as bootable, and have bios quickly skip over it to the next device in the boot sequence? So far it looks like the answer is "no" or "it depends on your BIOS." Both SeaBIOS and your Dell BIOS, based on what we've seen, will attempt to use the boot sector of a disk with a valid MBR, even when the boot sector is all zeros. That's consistent with all of the documentation I can find. It's possible that other BIOS might skip an all-zero boot sector, but we don't have any documentation of which systems behave that way. However, also based on testing, it seems that if you used GPT for your partitions, then BIOS would skip over the drive during the boot process. So, maybe that's a solution? The only reasons I can think of to use MBR are a) you have an operating system that can't read GPT and b) you need to boot from the drive under BIOS. I don't think either of those apply to you. Since my internal drive is dual boot, I do need to boot an OS that does not recognize GPT :( So, if I use GPT, then, bios will skip over it if it comes before the internal boot disk? I will test that on a usb disk. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 06/30/2015 03:41 PM, jd1008 wrote: >> >> So, it begs the question: > > > (that's not what "begs the question" means) Yes. It's an accusation. > >> Can I create a disk with msdos partitioning scheme, >> none of the partitions marked as bootable, and have bios >> quickly skip over it to the next device in the boot sequence? > > > So far it looks like the answer is "no" or "it depends on your BIOS." > > Both SeaBIOS and your Dell BIOS, based on what we've seen, will attempt to > use the boot sector of a disk with a valid MBR, even when the boot sector is > all zeros. That's consistent with all of the documentation I can find. > It's possible that other BIOS might skip an all-zero boot sector, but we > don't have any documentation of which systems behave that way. That seems to be true. > However, also based on testing, it seems that if you used GPT for your > partitions, then BIOS would skip over the drive during the boot process. No because every GPT creator also creates a PMBR which includes the MBR boot signature that you're telling us causes (some) BIOS's to use the entire MBR and then hang if it has nowhere to go. > So, maybe that's a solution? The only reasons I can think of to use MBR are > a) you have an operating system that can't read GPT and b) you need to boot > from the drive under BIOS. I don't think either of those apply to you. If you have such a BIOS, the work around is to not partition it either MBR or GPT. If it needs partitioning, use LVM on the whole block device. It has a signature the BIOS won't know about. -- Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/30/2015 03:41 PM, jd1008 wrote: So, it begs the question: (that's not what "begs the question" means) Can I create a disk with msdos partitioning scheme, none of the partitions marked as bootable, and have bios quickly skip over it to the next device in the boot sequence? So far it looks like the answer is "no" or "it depends on your BIOS." Both SeaBIOS and your Dell BIOS, based on what we've seen, will attempt to use the boot sector of a disk with a valid MBR, even when the boot sector is all zeros. That's consistent with all of the documentation I can find. It's possible that other BIOS might skip an all-zero boot sector, but we don't have any documentation of which systems behave that way. However, also based on testing, it seems that if you used GPT for your partitions, then BIOS would skip over the drive during the boot process. So, maybe that's a solution? The only reasons I can think of to use MBR are a) you have an operating system that can't read GPT and b) you need to boot from the drive under BIOS. I don't think either of those apply to you. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/30/2015 04:56 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: On 06/30/2015 03:32 PM, jd1008 wrote: So, with this kind of change, it destroys the partition table. So it does. :( Well, that's disappointing. Educational, but disappointing. I missed that in testing because the bootable media I was using wrote both an MBR and GPT labels to the USB drive. After invalidating the MBR, the GPT still described the location of the partition. So, how can I proceed with a brand new drive, dd /dev/zero into the first ... say 4K bytes, partition it with fdisk, do not mark any partition bootable, so that bios will skip over it ? -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/30/2015 04:54 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: I just set Vbox boot order to HD > CD/DVD. And added a new blank VDI for the HD, and a Fedora 22 Live CD ISO for the CD. And it boots from the CD. So the HD is clearly skipped. If I partition the HD with fdisk with a single partition and no boot flag, I get the same result. So clearly this BIOS is also ignoring/skipping the HD when bootloader code in the first 440 bytes is absent but otherwise has a valid signature and partition information. If I partition a new blank VDI with parted, boot hangs indefinitely with no error message. Chris Murphy Well, clearly we are comparing the behaviors of 2 very different bioses. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/30/2015 03:32 PM, jd1008 wrote: So, with this kind of change, it destroys the partition table. So it does. :( Well, that's disappointing. Educational, but disappointing. I missed that in testing because the bootable media I was using wrote both an MBR and GPT labels to the USB drive. After invalidating the MBR, the GPT still described the location of the partition. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
I just set Vbox boot order to HD > CD/DVD. And added a new blank VDI for the HD, and a Fedora 22 Live CD ISO for the CD. And it boots from the CD. So the HD is clearly skipped. If I partition the HD with fdisk with a single partition and no boot flag, I get the same result. So clearly this BIOS is also ignoring/skipping the HD when bootloader code in the first 440 bytes is absent but otherwise has a valid signature and partition information. If I partition a new blank VDI with parted, boot hangs indefinitely with no error message. Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 06/30/2015 03:17 PM, jd1008 wrote: >> >> The link you refer to >> talks about the 2 bytes past byte 255, they they are >> bytes 256 and 257. > > > No, they're the two byte block at the 255th block of two bytes. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_boot_record > > Again, bytes 0-446 are boot code. Bytes 256 and 257 are not special > locations, they fall within the boot sector. Bytes 511 and 512 (or, bytes > at offset 510 and 511) are the boot signature. When present, that signature > indicates that a boot sector is present and can be used. Testing indicates > that if the signature is present, BIOS will load that sector into memory and > continue execution of the code that it contains. Control will not return to > BIOS. > >> But I already indicated the 466 bytes are null... > > > Doesn't matter. The documentation doesn't say that the contents of the 446 > bytes are tested. nul bytes are valid opcodes in x86. It's possible this is BIOS specific. In the case I've tested, it's actually faux BIOS in the form of an EFI CSM. If the first 440 bytes are zeros, it doesn't consider that device bootable, and thus it's skipped. But I don't recall SeaBIOS or vbox's BIOS behavior, even though I've gotten bit by this confusion many times... -- Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 4:41 PM, jd1008 wrote: > So, it begs the question: > Can I create a disk with msdos partitioning scheme, > none of the partitions marked as bootable, and have bios > quickly skip over it to the next device in the boot sequence? If you partition the disk you want skipped with parted and friends (ill advised for reason I previously mentioned), then you need to remove the bootload jump code it writes to LBA 0, by zeroing the first 440 bytes as I and others previously described. If you partition with fdisk there is no code to erase it will just be skipped. However, fdisk will not erase existing code. So this only applies going forward. Same for gdisk. And same for their variants. -- Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/30/2015 03:17 PM, jd1008 wrote: The link you refer to talks about the 2 bytes past byte 255, they they are bytes 256 and 257. No, they're the two byte block at the 255th block of two bytes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_boot_record Again, bytes 0-446 are boot code. Bytes 256 and 257 are not special locations, they fall within the boot sector. Bytes 511 and 512 (or, bytes at offset 510 and 511) are the boot signature. When present, that signature indicates that a boot sector is present and can be used. Testing indicates that if the signature is present, BIOS will load that sector into memory and continue execution of the code that it contains. Control will not return to BIOS. But I already indicated the 466 bytes are null... Doesn't matter. The documentation doesn't say that the contents of the 446 bytes are tested. nul bytes are valid opcodes in x86. So, the laptop's BIOS is executing what? Whatever it finds in the first disk that has a valid boot signature. Once it finds a disk with a signature, it passes execution to the boot sector and does not continue searching. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/30/2015 04:36 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 4:32 PM, jd1008 wrote: Here is what happened after the 2 bytes at offset 511 and 512 were null'ed: fdisk /dev/sdb Welcome to fdisk (util-linux 2.24.2). Changes will remain in memory only, until you decide to write them. Be careful before using the write command. Device does not contain a recognized partition table. Created a new DOS disklabel with disk identifier 0x2c945747. Command (m for help): p Disk /dev/sdb: 1.8 TiB, 2000398933504 bytes, 3907029167 sectors Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 33553920 bytes Disklabel type: dos Disk identifier: 0x2c945747 So, you see, those 2 bytes must have also been encoded to contain something about the partitions. So, with this kind of change, it destroys the partition table. It invalidates it not destroys it. If you restore the signature, the partition table is valid again and will work. You really shouldn't use dd for these sorts of things, it's dangerous. This is what wipefs is for. It also has a backup facility that makes it easy to reverse mistakes. http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man8/wipefs.8.html So, it begs the question: Can I create a disk with msdos partitioning scheme, none of the partitions marked as bootable, and have bios quickly skip over it to the next device in the boot sequence? -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 4:32 PM, jd1008 wrote: > Here is what happened after the 2 bytes at offset 511 and 512 were null'ed: > > fdisk /dev/sdb > > Welcome to fdisk (util-linux 2.24.2). > Changes will remain in memory only, until you decide to write them. > Be careful before using the write command. > > Device does not contain a recognized partition table. > > Created a new DOS disklabel with disk identifier 0x2c945747. > > Command (m for help): p > > Disk /dev/sdb: 1.8 TiB, 2000398933504 bytes, 3907029167 sectors > Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes > Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes > I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 33553920 bytes > Disklabel type: dos > Disk identifier: 0x2c945747 > > > So, you see, those 2 bytes must have also been encoded to contain > something about the partitions. > > So, with this kind of change, it destroys the partition table. It invalidates it not destroys it. If you restore the signature, the partition table is valid again and will work. You really shouldn't use dd for these sorts of things, it's dangerous. This is what wipefs is for. It also has a backup facility that makes it easy to reverse mistakes. http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man8/wipefs.8.html -- Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem - Off list
On 06/30/2015 04:32 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: On 06/30/2015 03:04 PM, jd1008 wrote: dd if=/dev/sdb bs=2 count=1 skip=255 2>/dev/null | od -x 000 aa55 If these are the bytes that indicate a boot signature, can they be "null'ed" safely?? Doing so worked for me, when testing under SeaBIOS. dd if=/dev/zero bs=2 count=1 seek=255 of=/dev/sdb Well, as I just replied, nulling those 2 bytes wipes out partitioning info. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
Here is what happened after the 2 bytes at offset 511 and 512 were null'ed: fdisk /dev/sdb Welcome to fdisk (util-linux 2.24.2). Changes will remain in memory only, until you decide to write them. Be careful before using the write command. Device does not contain a recognized partition table. Created a new DOS disklabel with disk identifier 0x2c945747. Command (m for help): p Disk /dev/sdb: 1.8 TiB, 2000398933504 bytes, 3907029167 sectors Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 33553920 bytes Disklabel type: dos Disk identifier: 0x2c945747 So, you see, those 2 bytes must have also been encoded to contain something about the partitions. So, with this kind of change, it destroys the partition table. On 06/30/2015 04:19 PM, Rick Stevens wrote: On 06/30/2015 03:17 PM, jd1008 wrote: The link you refer to talks about the 2 bytes past byte 255, they they are bytes 256 and 257. No, you set the block size to 2, so you are seeking (2 * 255) or 512 bytes into the disk. But I already indicated the 466 bytes are null... in another usb drive I tested, thus no boot signature - and yet, bios hung forever because that disk was 2nd in boot order after cd/dvd drive, and before internal HD. So, the laptop's BIOS is executing what? A good code for moving from disk to disk until it finds the bootable drive in the boot sequence specified? Clearly in this case - it does not do so. And yet, you insist it is not a flaw. On 06/30/2015 03:47 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: On 06/30/2015 02:28 PM, jd1008 wrote: I already explained to you 1. The disk is partitioned using fdisk. 2. I cleared the 446 bytes to nulls. 3. None of the partitions have a boot signature. The boot signature is at bytes 511 and 512, and you indicated that it is present: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2015-June/462295.html Those bytes indicate to BIOS that the disk contains boot code. I tested wiping those bytes and verified that SeaBIOS, at least, will not attempt to run the boot sector of a disk after they are wiped. You comment "bug" is not a word for "something I don't understand" or "something I don't like." is so totally irrelevant to what I have already reported wrt the drive at hand and the BIOS at hand. Such comments are sounding more and more like coming from an a*al attitude!! Computers are just machines that execute instructions. They don't reason. They don't make decisions. Their design may not always be the one you like, but that's not the same as being "buggy". I'm trying to reasonably explain and demonstrate that you can predict and control the computer's behavior, while you rant about Dell "f***ing up." I think your anger is unjustified, both toward your system's vendor and toward me. Maybe mellow out a little. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 4:04 PM, jd1008 wrote: > > Hi Rick, > Re: my /dev/sdb: > > > dd if=/dev/sdb bs=2 count=1 skip=255 2>/dev/null | od -x > 000 aa55 > 002 > > If these are the bytes that indicate a boot signature, > can they be "null'ed" safely?? How do you define safely? It means the entire MBR record is invalid, including the partition scheme. # wipefs -a /dev/sdb Will do exactly the above on MBR disks, it removes the MBR signature making it invalid. If the GPT partition scheme is used, wipefs will remove the GPT primary and backup header signatures, and the PMBR signature, making all three of them invalid and thus not a partitioned drive. -- Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem - Off list
On 06/30/2015 03:04 PM, jd1008 wrote: dd if=/dev/sdb bs=2 count=1 skip=255 2>/dev/null | od -x 000 aa55 If these are the bytes that indicate a boot signature, can they be "null'ed" safely?? Doing so worked for me, when testing under SeaBIOS. dd if=/dev/zero bs=2 count=1 seek=255 of=/dev/sdb -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/30/2015 03:19 PM, Rick Stevens wrote: On 06/30/2015 03:17 PM, jd1008 wrote: The link you refer to talks about the 2 bytes past byte 255, they they are bytes 256 and 257. No, you set the block size to 2, so you are seeking (2 * 255) or 512 bytes into the disk. Grrr! 2 * 255 = 510 bytes into the disk, so you were looking at bytes 510 and 511 (the last two bytes in the first sector). But I already indicated the 466 bytes are null... in another usb drive I tested, thus no boot signature - and yet, bios hung forever because that disk was 2nd in boot order after cd/dvd drive, and before internal HD. So, the laptop's BIOS is executing what? A good code for moving from disk to disk until it finds the bootable drive in the boot sequence specified? Clearly in this case - it does not do so. And yet, you insist it is not a flaw. On 06/30/2015 03:47 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: On 06/30/2015 02:28 PM, jd1008 wrote: I already explained to you 1. The disk is partitioned using fdisk. 2. I cleared the 446 bytes to nulls. 3. None of the partitions have a boot signature. The boot signature is at bytes 511 and 512, and you indicated that it is present: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2015-June/462295.html Those bytes indicate to BIOS that the disk contains boot code. I tested wiping those bytes and verified that SeaBIOS, at least, will not attempt to run the boot sector of a disk after they are wiped. You comment "bug" is not a word for "something I don't understand" or "something I don't like." is so totally irrelevant to what I have already reported wrt the drive at hand and the BIOS at hand. Such comments are sounding more and more like coming from an a*al attitude!! Computers are just machines that execute instructions. They don't reason. They don't make decisions. Their design may not always be the one you like, but that's not the same as being "buggy". I'm trying to reasonably explain and demonstrate that you can predict and control the computer's behavior, while you rant about Dell "f***ing up." I think your anger is unjustified, both toward your system's vendor and toward me. Maybe mellow out a little. -- -- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigitalri...@alldigital.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 226437340 Yahoo: origrps2 - -- - Is that a buffer overflow or are you just happy to see me? - -- -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/30/2015 03:17 PM, jd1008 wrote: The link you refer to talks about the 2 bytes past byte 255, they they are bytes 256 and 257. No, you set the block size to 2, so you are seeking (2 * 255) or 512 bytes into the disk. But I already indicated the 466 bytes are null... in another usb drive I tested, thus no boot signature - and yet, bios hung forever because that disk was 2nd in boot order after cd/dvd drive, and before internal HD. So, the laptop's BIOS is executing what? A good code for moving from disk to disk until it finds the bootable drive in the boot sequence specified? Clearly in this case - it does not do so. And yet, you insist it is not a flaw. On 06/30/2015 03:47 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: On 06/30/2015 02:28 PM, jd1008 wrote: I already explained to you 1. The disk is partitioned using fdisk. 2. I cleared the 446 bytes to nulls. 3. None of the partitions have a boot signature. The boot signature is at bytes 511 and 512, and you indicated that it is present: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2015-June/462295.html Those bytes indicate to BIOS that the disk contains boot code. I tested wiping those bytes and verified that SeaBIOS, at least, will not attempt to run the boot sector of a disk after they are wiped. You comment "bug" is not a word for "something I don't understand" or "something I don't like." is so totally irrelevant to what I have already reported wrt the drive at hand and the BIOS at hand. Such comments are sounding more and more like coming from an a*al attitude!! Computers are just machines that execute instructions. They don't reason. They don't make decisions. Their design may not always be the one you like, but that's not the same as being "buggy". I'm trying to reasonably explain and demonstrate that you can predict and control the computer's behavior, while you rant about Dell "f***ing up." I think your anger is unjustified, both toward your system's vendor and toward me. Maybe mellow out a little. -- -- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigitalri...@alldigital.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 226437340 Yahoo: origrps2 - -- - If at first you don't succeed, quit. No sense being a damned fool! - -- -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
observations: 1. GRUB's boot.img, the 440 bytes of code in the MBR/LBA 0, does not use the partition active bit (the boot flag). So boot flag is irrelevant in a GRUB context. The GRUB boot.img code contains the specific LBA to jump to where core.img is found, which on MBR disks is in the MBR gap. 2. The most likely explanation for the problem, as someone else alluded to, is the USB drive has stale bootloader code on it that points to no where and hangs. If this drive was partitioned with parted (including gparted which leverages libparted), the described behavior is intended behavior by parted developers. [1] The solution is to do one of two things: change the boot order in BIOS; or zero the first 440 bytes of LBA 0 with this: # dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdX bs=440 count=1 ##where X is the letter for the USB drive --- Chris Murphy [1] Which I've complained about, but the parted developers don't appear to care, or think they're doing the majority a favor. If LBA 0 is completely blank at the time parted partitions it, parted writes out some basic jump code in the first 440 bytes of the MBR that honors the active bit to determine the jump location. If the drive isn't meant to be a boot drive, this code just causes the CPU to jump to nowhere. There isn't even any error handling in this jump code. So you get exactly the behavior described. Now, I find it absurd, but, that's life with people who think everyone else is a moron. Because after all, if you're not creating a drive intended to boot you have no good reason to partition it at all: a.) format the entire block device with a file system; or b.) use LVM on the whole block device as the method of partitioning, which is vastly superior to MBR or GPT partitioning. Note that parted will not overwrite already present bootloader code in the MBR. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
The link you refer to talks about the 2 bytes past byte 255, they they are bytes 256 and 257. But I already indicated the 466 bytes are null... in another usb drive I tested, thus no boot signature - and yet, bios hung forever because that disk was 2nd in boot order after cd/dvd drive, and before internal HD. So, the laptop's BIOS is executing what? A good code for moving from disk to disk until it finds the bootable drive in the boot sequence specified? Clearly in this case - it does not do so. And yet, you insist it is not a flaw. On 06/30/2015 03:47 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: On 06/30/2015 02:28 PM, jd1008 wrote: I already explained to you 1. The disk is partitioned using fdisk. 2. I cleared the 446 bytes to nulls. 3. None of the partitions have a boot signature. The boot signature is at bytes 511 and 512, and you indicated that it is present: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2015-June/462295.html Those bytes indicate to BIOS that the disk contains boot code. I tested wiping those bytes and verified that SeaBIOS, at least, will not attempt to run the boot sector of a disk after they are wiped. You comment "bug" is not a word for "something I don't understand" or "something I don't like." is so totally irrelevant to what I have already reported wrt the drive at hand and the BIOS at hand. Such comments are sounding more and more like coming from an a*al attitude!! Computers are just machines that execute instructions. They don't reason. They don't make decisions. Their design may not always be the one you like, but that's not the same as being "buggy". I'm trying to reasonably explain and demonstrate that you can predict and control the computer's behavior, while you rant about Dell "f***ing up." I think your anger is unjustified, both toward your system's vendor and toward me. Maybe mellow out a little. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem - Off list
Hi Rick, Re: my /dev/sdb: dd if=/dev/sdb bs=2 count=1 skip=255 2>/dev/null | od -x 000 aa55 002 If these are the bytes that indicate a boot signature, can they be "null'ed" safely?? Thanx. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/30/2015 02:28 PM, jd1008 wrote: I already explained to you 1. The disk is partitioned using fdisk. 2. I cleared the 446 bytes to nulls. 3. None of the partitions have a boot signature. The boot signature is at bytes 511 and 512, and you indicated that it is present: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2015-June/462295.html Those bytes indicate to BIOS that the disk contains boot code. I tested wiping those bytes and verified that SeaBIOS, at least, will not attempt to run the boot sector of a disk after they are wiped. You comment "bug" is not a word for "something I don't understand" or "something I don't like." is so totally irrelevant to what I have already reported wrt the drive at hand and the BIOS at hand. Such comments are sounding more and more like coming from an a*al attitude!! Computers are just machines that execute instructions. They don't reason. They don't make decisions. Their design may not always be the one you like, but that's not the same as being "buggy". I'm trying to reasonably explain and demonstrate that you can predict and control the computer's behavior, while you rant about Dell "f***ing up." I think your anger is unjustified, both toward your system's vendor and toward me. Maybe mellow out a little. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
I already explained to you 1. The disk is partitioned using fdisk. 2. I cleared the 446 bytes to nulls. 3. None of the partitions have a boot signature. You comment "bug" is not a word for "something I don't understand" or "something I don't like." is so totally irrelevant to what I have already reported wrt the drive at hand and the BIOS at hand. Such comments are sounding more and more like coming from an a*al attitude!! On 06/30/2015 03:21 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: On 06/26/2015 07:35 PM, jd1008 wrote: I have been googling and read wikis. None of them really explain clearly If 1. a drive has no bootable partitions and 2. the boot code in the 1st 446 bytes does not exist (all nulls) then how does bios decide it is not bootable, move on to the next in the sequence? I didn't get a satisfactory answer from wikis, either, so I did an experiment. I loaded a bootable image on a flash drive and connected that to a virtual machine as a USB disk. I also added a bootable ISO to the VM. I configured the VM to boot from the USB drive first, then the ISO. The VM successfully booted from the flash drive. I backed up the MBR. # dd if=/dev/sdb bs=512 count=1 of=sdb.mbr Then I zeroed 446 byes of the flash drive. # dd if=/dev/zero bs=446 count=1 of=/dev/sdb The VM halted when trying to boot, so I restored the boot sector and wiped the boot signature. # dd if=sdb.mbr of=/dev/sdb # dd if=/dev/zero bs=2 count=1 seek=255 of=/dev/sdb With the boot signature wiped, the VM would boot from the ISO. Based on testing, we can conclude that at least SeaBIOS will treat a boot sector with all nul bytes as a valid boot sector and run it. It will skip a boot sector if the boot signature in that MBR is not present. Note that as I previously mentioned, the BIOS doesn't use the boot flag in the partition table. A "bootable" partition is ONLY relevant to DOS type boot loaders, which use it to identify the C: drive from which they will boot. It does not matter to BIOS whether a disk has any bootable partitions or not. For bios to spend an eternity looking for the boot code on a non-bootable drive tells me it is a bug, even if implemented according to specs (thus the specs themselves would be at fault). It's not looking for boot code. It identifies a valid boot sector, where validity is determined by the presence of a boot signature, and runs that code. I'm not an expert on BIOS, but the extent to which I've read documentation is fairly clear and consistent. Execution begins at a specific memory location where BIOS is expected to reside. BIOS locates a boot device (possibly a hardware ROM, or a disk) and continues execution of that code. That code loads a kernel into memory and continues execution of that code. It's not described as a stack. Nothing indicates that control will return to the previous chunk of code if it finishes or does nothing. "bug" is not a word for "something I don't understand" or "something I don't like." -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/26/2015 07:35 PM, jd1008 wrote: I have been googling and read wikis. None of them really explain clearly If 1. a drive has no bootable partitions and 2. the boot code in the 1st 446 bytes does not exist (all nulls) then how does bios decide it is not bootable, move on to the next in the sequence? I didn't get a satisfactory answer from wikis, either, so I did an experiment. I loaded a bootable image on a flash drive and connected that to a virtual machine as a USB disk. I also added a bootable ISO to the VM. I configured the VM to boot from the USB drive first, then the ISO. The VM successfully booted from the flash drive. I backed up the MBR. # dd if=/dev/sdb bs=512 count=1 of=sdb.mbr Then I zeroed 446 byes of the flash drive. # dd if=/dev/zero bs=446 count=1 of=/dev/sdb The VM halted when trying to boot, so I restored the boot sector and wiped the boot signature. # dd if=sdb.mbr of=/dev/sdb # dd if=/dev/zero bs=2 count=1 seek=255 of=/dev/sdb With the boot signature wiped, the VM would boot from the ISO. Based on testing, we can conclude that at least SeaBIOS will treat a boot sector with all nul bytes as a valid boot sector and run it. It will skip a boot sector if the boot signature in that MBR is not present. Note that as I previously mentioned, the BIOS doesn't use the boot flag in the partition table. A "bootable" partition is ONLY relevant to DOS type boot loaders, which use it to identify the C: drive from which they will boot. It does not matter to BIOS whether a disk has any bootable partitions or not. For bios to spend an eternity looking for the boot code on a non-bootable drive tells me it is a bug, even if implemented according to specs (thus the specs themselves would be at fault). It's not looking for boot code. It identifies a valid boot sector, where validity is determined by the presence of a boot signature, and runs that code. I'm not an expert on BIOS, but the extent to which I've read documentation is fairly clear and consistent. Execution begins at a specific memory location where BIOS is expected to reside. BIOS locates a boot device (possibly a hardware ROM, or a disk) and continues execution of that code. That code loads a kernel into memory and continues execution of that code. It's not described as a stack. Nothing indicates that control will return to the previous chunk of code if it finishes or does nothing. "bug" is not a word for "something I don't understand" or "something I don't like." -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
perhaps the drive firmware presents the drive as bootable when first awakened .. to load driver like software .. or perhaps malware ... On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 7:35 PM, jd1008 wrote: > > > On 06/26/2015 06:09 PM, Rick Stevens wrote: > >> On 06/26/2015 04:42 PM, jd1008 wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 06/26/2015 05:29 PM, Rick Stevens wrote: >>> On 06/26/2015 04:05 PM, jd1008 wrote: > > > On 06/26/2015 04:55 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: > >> On 06/26/2015 02:51 PM, jd1008 wrote: >> >>> Just wondering about the bytes in the first sector which >>> you thought might be boot code that is confusing BIOS >>> to think that my usb drive is bootable. >>> The bytes you already saw are obviously not boot code. >>> >> >> What is obvious to you is not obvious to the CPU, which simply >> executes instructions. Everything in bytes is 0-446 is boot code, >> whether it does anything useful or not. >> > Fine! No argument there. > Where do device (or partition) labels reside? In the partitions? > fdisk- (dos-) style partition tables do not have partition labels. GPT partitions do. They are 72 bytes long, starting at offset 56 in the partition's entry in the partition table. The location of the partition table is given in an 8-byte value starting at offset 72 in the GPT header. Generally, they start at the second LBA (LBA1) on the disk and are 128 bytes long. Filesystem labels (regardless of DPT or GPT partitioning) are located in the filesystem's superblock(s). They are 16 bytes long starting at offset 120 in each copy of the superblock. >>> >>> OK. So if only GPT partitions have labels, >>> what does mlabel do (i.e. where does it place the label?). >>> >>> $ yum provides /usr/bin/mlabel >>> Loaded plugins: langpacks, refresh-packagekit >>> mtools-4.0.18-4.fc20.x86_64 : Programs for accessing MS-DOS disks >>> without mounting the disks >>> Repo: fedora >>> Matched from: >>> Filename: /usr/bin/mlabel >>> >> >> The location of a filesystem label (if supported) is dependent on the >> filesystem type, so perhaps I misled you a tad. Sorry! The 16-byte >> label area starting at offset 120 of the superblock I mentioned above >> is for ext2|3|4 filesystems. >> >> For FAT12 and FAT16 filesystems, the label is stored in an 11-byte area >> starting at offset 43 in the partition's header. For FAT32 filesystems, >> it's stored in an 11-byte area starting at offset 71 in the partition's >> header. >> >> You really can google this stuff yourself, you know. >> > I have been googling and read wikis. > None of them really explain clearly > If > 1. a drive has no bootable partitions and > 2. the boot code in the 1st 446 bytes does not exist (all nulls) > then > how does bios decide it is not bootable, move on to the next in the > sequence? > > As I have already indicated, bios is not moving on to the next > disk; in this case, the internal HD. > For bios to spend an eternity looking for the boot code on a non-bootable > drive tells me it is a bug, even if implemented according to specs (thus > the > specs themselves would be at fault). > I even read a passage that said something to the effect > ."implementation dependent" > > Of course, the dependency being based on different requirements or > different standards etc. > > Should have kept the darned page so I could give the URL. > > I recall Prof. Andrew /Tannenbaum's maxim: > The great thing about standards is that there are so many of them. > > > / > -- > users mailing list > users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe or change subscription options: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct > Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org > -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/26/2015 06:09 PM, Rick Stevens wrote: On 06/26/2015 04:42 PM, jd1008 wrote: On 06/26/2015 05:29 PM, Rick Stevens wrote: On 06/26/2015 04:05 PM, jd1008 wrote: On 06/26/2015 04:55 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: On 06/26/2015 02:51 PM, jd1008 wrote: Just wondering about the bytes in the first sector which you thought might be boot code that is confusing BIOS to think that my usb drive is bootable. The bytes you already saw are obviously not boot code. What is obvious to you is not obvious to the CPU, which simply executes instructions. Everything in bytes is 0-446 is boot code, whether it does anything useful or not. Fine! No argument there. Where do device (or partition) labels reside? In the partitions? fdisk- (dos-) style partition tables do not have partition labels. GPT partitions do. They are 72 bytes long, starting at offset 56 in the partition's entry in the partition table. The location of the partition table is given in an 8-byte value starting at offset 72 in the GPT header. Generally, they start at the second LBA (LBA1) on the disk and are 128 bytes long. Filesystem labels (regardless of DPT or GPT partitioning) are located in the filesystem's superblock(s). They are 16 bytes long starting at offset 120 in each copy of the superblock. OK. So if only GPT partitions have labels, what does mlabel do (i.e. where does it place the label?). $ yum provides /usr/bin/mlabel Loaded plugins: langpacks, refresh-packagekit mtools-4.0.18-4.fc20.x86_64 : Programs for accessing MS-DOS disks without mounting the disks Repo: fedora Matched from: Filename: /usr/bin/mlabel The location of a filesystem label (if supported) is dependent on the filesystem type, so perhaps I misled you a tad. Sorry! The 16-byte label area starting at offset 120 of the superblock I mentioned above is for ext2|3|4 filesystems. For FAT12 and FAT16 filesystems, the label is stored in an 11-byte area starting at offset 43 in the partition's header. For FAT32 filesystems, it's stored in an 11-byte area starting at offset 71 in the partition's header. You really can google this stuff yourself, you know. I have been googling and read wikis. None of them really explain clearly If 1. a drive has no bootable partitions and 2. the boot code in the 1st 446 bytes does not exist (all nulls) then how does bios decide it is not bootable, move on to the next in the sequence? As I have already indicated, bios is not moving on to the next disk; in this case, the internal HD. For bios to spend an eternity looking for the boot code on a non-bootable drive tells me it is a bug, even if implemented according to specs (thus the specs themselves would be at fault). I even read a passage that said something to the effect ."implementation dependent" Of course, the dependency being based on different requirements or different standards etc. Should have kept the darned page so I could give the URL. I recall Prof. Andrew /Tannenbaum's maxim: The great thing about standards is that there are so many of them. / -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/26/2015 04:55 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: On 06/26/2015 02:51 PM, jd1008 wrote: Just wondering about the bytes in the first sector which you thought might be boot code that is confusing BIOS to think that my usb drive is bootable. The bytes you already saw are obviously not boot code. What is obvious to you is not obvious to the CPU, which simply executes instructions. Everything in bytes is 0-446 is boot code, whether it does anything useful or not. Are 466 null bytes also treated as boot code? -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/26/2015 04:42 PM, jd1008 wrote: On 06/26/2015 05:29 PM, Rick Stevens wrote: On 06/26/2015 04:05 PM, jd1008 wrote: On 06/26/2015 04:55 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: On 06/26/2015 02:51 PM, jd1008 wrote: Just wondering about the bytes in the first sector which you thought might be boot code that is confusing BIOS to think that my usb drive is bootable. The bytes you already saw are obviously not boot code. What is obvious to you is not obvious to the CPU, which simply executes instructions. Everything in bytes is 0-446 is boot code, whether it does anything useful or not. Fine! No argument there. Where do device (or partition) labels reside? In the partitions? fdisk- (dos-) style partition tables do not have partition labels. GPT partitions do. They are 72 bytes long, starting at offset 56 in the partition's entry in the partition table. The location of the partition table is given in an 8-byte value starting at offset 72 in the GPT header. Generally, they start at the second LBA (LBA1) on the disk and are 128 bytes long. Filesystem labels (regardless of DPT or GPT partitioning) are located in the filesystem's superblock(s). They are 16 bytes long starting at offset 120 in each copy of the superblock. OK. So if only GPT partitions have labels, what does mlabel do (i.e. where does it place the label?). $ yum provides /usr/bin/mlabel Loaded plugins: langpacks, refresh-packagekit mtools-4.0.18-4.fc20.x86_64 : Programs for accessing MS-DOS disks without mounting the disks Repo: fedora Matched from: Filename: /usr/bin/mlabel The location of a filesystem label (if supported) is dependent on the filesystem type, so perhaps I misled you a tad. Sorry! The 16-byte label area starting at offset 120 of the superblock I mentioned above is for ext2|3|4 filesystems. For FAT12 and FAT16 filesystems, the label is stored in an 11-byte area starting at offset 43 in the partition's header. For FAT32 filesystems, it's stored in an 11-byte area starting at offset 71 in the partition's header. You really can google this stuff yourself, you know. -- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigitalri...@alldigital.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 226437340 Yahoo: origrps2 - -- - Money can't buy happiness, but it can take the sting out of being - - miserable! - -- -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/26/2015 04:29 PM, Rick Stevens wrote: On 06/26/2015 04:05 PM, jd1008 wrote: On 06/26/2015 04:55 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: On 06/26/2015 02:51 PM, jd1008 wrote: Just wondering about the bytes in the first sector which you thought might be boot code that is confusing BIOS to think that my usb drive is bootable. The bytes you already saw are obviously not boot code. What is obvious to you is not obvious to the CPU, which simply executes instructions. Everything in bytes is 0-446 is boot code, whether it does anything useful or not. Fine! No argument there. Where do device (or partition) labels reside? In the partitions? fdisk- (dos-) style partition tables do not have partition labels. GPT partitions do. They are 72 bytes long, starting at offset 56 in the partition's entry in the partition table. The location of the partition table is given in an 8-byte value starting at offset 72 in the GPT header. Generally, they start at the second LBA (LBA1) on the disk and are 128 bytes long. My bad, the table starts in the third LBA (LBA2). LBA0 is the MBR, LBA1 is the GPT header, and the partition table starts at LBA2. As an aside, EFI specifies that there will be at least 128 partition entries, so this will occupy at least 16K (16,384) bytes. Filesystem labels (regardless of DPT or GPT partitioning) are located in the filesystem's superblock(s). They are 16 bytes long starting at offset 120 in each copy of the superblock. -- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigitalri...@alldigital.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 226437340 Yahoo: origrps2 - -- - When all else fails, try reading the instructions.- -- -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/26/2015 05:29 PM, Rick Stevens wrote: On 06/26/2015 04:05 PM, jd1008 wrote: On 06/26/2015 04:55 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: On 06/26/2015 02:51 PM, jd1008 wrote: Just wondering about the bytes in the first sector which you thought might be boot code that is confusing BIOS to think that my usb drive is bootable. The bytes you already saw are obviously not boot code. What is obvious to you is not obvious to the CPU, which simply executes instructions. Everything in bytes is 0-446 is boot code, whether it does anything useful or not. Fine! No argument there. Where do device (or partition) labels reside? In the partitions? fdisk- (dos-) style partition tables do not have partition labels. GPT partitions do. They are 72 bytes long, starting at offset 56 in the partition's entry in the partition table. The location of the partition table is given in an 8-byte value starting at offset 72 in the GPT header. Generally, they start at the second LBA (LBA1) on the disk and are 128 bytes long. Filesystem labels (regardless of DPT or GPT partitioning) are located in the filesystem's superblock(s). They are 16 bytes long starting at offset 120 in each copy of the superblock. OK. So if only GPT partitions have labels, what does mlabel do (i.e. where does it place the label?). $ yum provides /usr/bin/mlabel Loaded plugins: langpacks, refresh-packagekit mtools-4.0.18-4.fc20.x86_64 : Programs for accessing MS-DOS disks without mounting the disks Repo: fedora Matched from: Filename: /usr/bin/mlabel -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/26/2015 04:05 PM, jd1008 wrote: On 06/26/2015 04:55 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: On 06/26/2015 02:51 PM, jd1008 wrote: Just wondering about the bytes in the first sector which you thought might be boot code that is confusing BIOS to think that my usb drive is bootable. The bytes you already saw are obviously not boot code. What is obvious to you is not obvious to the CPU, which simply executes instructions. Everything in bytes is 0-446 is boot code, whether it does anything useful or not. Fine! No argument there. Where do device (or partition) labels reside? In the partitions? fdisk- (dos-) style partition tables do not have partition labels. GPT partitions do. They are 72 bytes long, starting at offset 56 in the partition's entry in the partition table. The location of the partition table is given in an 8-byte value starting at offset 72 in the GPT header. Generally, they start at the second LBA (LBA1) on the disk and are 128 bytes long. Filesystem labels (regardless of DPT or GPT partitioning) are located in the filesystem's superblock(s). They are 16 bytes long starting at offset 120 in each copy of the superblock. -- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigitalri...@alldigital.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 226437340 Yahoo: origrps2 - -- -Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.- -- -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/26/2015 04:05 PM, jd1008 wrote: Where do device (or partition) labels reside? In the partitions? In MBR, partitions don't have labels. Filesystems do regardless of what container they're in. In GPT, partitions have 72 bytes for a label/name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_boot_record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUID_Partition_Table -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/26/2015 04:55 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: On 06/26/2015 02:51 PM, jd1008 wrote: Just wondering about the bytes in the first sector which you thought might be boot code that is confusing BIOS to think that my usb drive is bootable. The bytes you already saw are obviously not boot code. What is obvious to you is not obvious to the CPU, which simply executes instructions. Everything in bytes is 0-446 is boot code, whether it does anything useful or not. Fine! No argument there. Where do device (or partition) labels reside? In the partitions? -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/26/2015 02:51 PM, jd1008 wrote: Just wondering about the bytes in the first sector which you thought might be boot code that is confusing BIOS to think that my usb drive is bootable. The bytes you already saw are obviously not boot code. What is obvious to you is not obvious to the CPU, which simply executes instructions. Everything in bytes is 0-446 is boot code, whether it does anything useful or not. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/25/2015 03:32 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: On 06/25/2015 11:33 AM, jd1008 wrote: I bought the usb drive brand new and had not installed anything on it. Just partitioned it and used it. So, how could it contain any boot code? Is this what manufacturers do by default? I had not encountered this issue you raise before. Have a look at it: dd if=/dev/sdb bs=446 count=1 | od -c Does it have anything other than nul bytes? Just wondering about the bytes in the first sector which you thought might be boot code that is confusing BIOS to think that my usb drive is bootable. The bytes you already saw are obviously not boot code. What about disk label? Could those bytes be a disk label? -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/25/2015 03:55 PM, jd1008 wrote: OK, but since this drive is my only backup drive, I feel I cannot run dd to clobber those 466 bytes :( Too risky, even if I feel nothing can go wrong, but ... murphy's law Re: sda1: here is the output: dd if=/dev/sda bs=2 count=1 skip=255 2>/dev/null | od -x 000 aa55 Sure, caution is warranted. Setting your BIOS to boot HDD first, and using F12 when you need USB boot is a perfectly reasonable solution. My point is merely that there's nothing wrong with your BIOS. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/25/2015 04:26 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: On 06/25/2015 02:51 PM, jd1008 wrote: Is the; \0 305 033 the cause of the problem for BIOS? Possibly? Though, I should have also suggested that you check bytes at 0x1FE and 0x1FF: # dd if=/dev/sda bs=2 count=1 skip=255 2>/dev/null | od -x 000 aa55 002 Those bytes are a signature that indicates that a boot loader is present, at least by convention, according to wikipedia :) OK, but since this drive is my only backup drive, I feel I cannot run dd to clobber those 466 bytes :( Too risky, even if I feel nothing can go wrong, but ... murphy's law Re: sda1: here is the output: dd if=/dev/sda bs=2 count=1 skip=255 2>/dev/null | od -x 000 aa55 002 -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/25/2015 02:51 PM, jd1008 wrote: Is the; \0 305 033 the cause of the problem for BIOS? Possibly? Though, I should have also suggested that you check bytes at 0x1FE and 0x1FF: # dd if=/dev/sda bs=2 count=1 skip=255 2>/dev/null | od -x 000 aa55 002 Those bytes are a signature that indicates that a boot loader is present, at least by convention, according to wikipedia :) -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/25/2015 03:32 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: On 06/25/2015 11:33 AM, jd1008 wrote: I bought the usb drive brand new and had not installed anything on it. Just partitioned it and used it. So, how could it contain any boot code? Is this what manufacturers do by default? I had not encountered this issue you raise before. Have a look at it: dd if=/dev/sdb bs=446 count=1 | od -c Does it have anything other than nul bytes? OK, here is the output. Is the; \0 305 033 the cause of the problem for BIOS? # dd if=/dev/sdb bs=446 count=1 | /usr/bin/od -c 1+0 records in 1+0 records out 446 bytes (446 B) copied, 4.7578e-05 s, 9.4 MB/s 000 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 * 660 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 ; \0 305 033 \0 \0 676 -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/25/2015 11:33 AM, jd1008 wrote: I bought the usb drive brand new and had not installed anything on it. Just partitioned it and used it. So, how could it contain any boot code? Is this what manufacturers do by default? I had not encountered this issue you raise before. Have a look at it: dd if=/dev/sdb bs=446 count=1 | od -c Does it have anything other than nul bytes? -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/25/2015 11:22 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote: On 06/24/2015 05:47 PM, jd1008 wrote: Well, that is strange!!! It really says that BIOS is busted and does not have the good sense to realize the drive is not bootable - just as in the case of having an audio CD in the CD drive, and it ignores the presenc of the audio CD and moves on to the next item (USB drive), which is also not bootable, and none of it's partitions are marked bootable. That's not how BIOS booting works. Each device in the boot order is searched for boot loader code. If code is found, control is handed off, and that code is expected to boot the system. There's no timeout, because BIOS is no longer in control of the system. The bootable flag isn't used by the BIOS at all. It's used by DOS boot loaders to determine which partition to continue boot from. Your USB drive appears to have boot code of *some* kind in the MBR. Your BIOS isn't broken. Dell did not "f*** up". You just need to clear the boot sector. You can do that with: dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdb bs=446 count=1 Standard disclaimers apply: Back up your data first. Double check the command before following advice from some rando on the internet. etc. I think that what I will resort to is unplugging the usb drive for the first few seconds to let the BIOS select internal HD and start the boot, then plugin in the USB drive. Sometimes, I do need to boot from a USB drive. You could do that, or you could change the boot order to boot HDD before USB, and use F12 when you need to boot USB. Otherwise, you can't do a remote reboot because you won't be there to unplug the USB drive. Thanx Gordon . -but I bought the usb drive brand new and had not installed anything on it. Just partitioned it and used it. So, how could it contain any boot code? Is this what manufacturers do by default? I had not encountered this issue you raise before. Also Re: dd: The drive is THE backup drive for the laptop :) So, I do not have a 3rd drive to back it up to. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/24/2015 05:47 PM, jd1008 wrote: Well, that is strange!!! It really says that BIOS is busted and does not have the good sense to realize the drive is not bootable - just as in the case of having an audio CD in the CD drive, and it ignores the presenc of the audio CD and moves on to the next item (USB drive), which is also not bootable, and none of it's partitions are marked bootable. That's not how BIOS booting works. Each device in the boot order is searched for boot loader code. If code is found, control is handed off, and that code is expected to boot the system. There's no timeout, because BIOS is no longer in control of the system. The bootable flag isn't used by the BIOS at all. It's used by DOS boot loaders to determine which partition to continue boot from. Your USB drive appears to have boot code of *some* kind in the MBR. Your BIOS isn't broken. Dell did not "f*** up". You just need to clear the boot sector. You can do that with: dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdb bs=446 count=1 Standard disclaimers apply: Back up your data first. Double check the command before following advice from some rando on the internet. etc. I think that what I will resort to is unplugging the usb drive for the first few seconds to let the BIOS select internal HD and start the boot, then plugin in the USB drive. Sometimes, I do need to boot from a USB drive. You could do that, or you could change the boot order to boot HDD before USB, and use F12 when you need to boot USB. Otherwise, you can't do a remote reboot because you won't be there to unplug the USB drive. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On Wed, 2015-06-24 at 18:36 -0600, jd1008 wrote: > OK, so how long before bios times out and move on > to the internal HD? The usb drive, which is > NOT bootable, has no booter installed, and > neither one of it's partitions are bootable: Some BIOSs will not do that. I have one PC that cannot be booted if there's a USB drive (of any kind) plugged in, despite the BIOS being set to boot from the HDD first. I had another PC that cannot be secured. You can set BIOS passwords, and save the BIOS to only boot from the HDD. But *before* the BIOS is a wide-open boot menu that cannot be locked down, so someone could easily bypass your security measures to boot from some other drive. Some manufactures are just crap at programming their motherboards. And if they weren't closed source, we could do something about it. Yes, I'm aware that there are open source BIOSs, but you can't just replace the BIOS on *any* motherboard that you happen to have. -- tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp Linux 3.19.8-100.fc20.i686 #1 SMP Tue May 12 17:42:35 UTC 2015 i686 All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no point trying to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the public lists. George Orwell's '1984' was supposed to be a warning against tyranny, not a set of instructions for supposedly democratic governments. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/24/2015 07:13 PM, Rick Stevens wrote: On 06/24/2015 05:47 PM, jd1008 wrote: On 06/24/2015 06:40 PM, Rick Stevens wrote: On 06/24/2015 05:36 PM, jd1008 wrote: On 06/24/2015 06:25 PM, Rick Stevens wrote: On 06/24/2015 05:07 PM, jd1008 wrote: On 06/24/2015 05:57 PM, Rick Stevens wrote: On 06/24/2015 04:25 PM, jd1008 wrote: Laptop: Dell Latitude E6510. OS: F20 with all updates Grub installed on sda. Power up ,and after bios's internal works, I do not get the grub menu. All I get is an empty screen with the underscore cursor blinking at upper left corner. Reboot. Press F12 to get the BIOS boot menu. Select Internal HDD Boots just fine. Looks like the BIOS' concept of the primary boot drive is different than "internal HDD". Check the boot order on the BIOS. Boot order is 1. CD drive 2. USB drive 3. Internal Drive 4. Network Ok, so do you have a CD in the drive or a USB drive plugged in? If so, it's going to try to boot from them first. OK, so how long before bios times out and move on to the internal HD? The usb drive, which is NOT bootable, has no booter installed, and neither one of it's partitions are bootable: # fdisk -l /dev/sdb Disk /dev/sdb: 1.8 TiB, 2000398933504 bytes, 3907029167 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 Disklabel type: dos Disk identifier: 0x1bc5003b DeviceBoot StartEnd Blocks Id System /dev/sdb32048 3890251950 1945124951+ 83 Linux /dev/sdb4 3890288670 39070291668370248+ 82 Linux swap / Solaris It's irrelevant. You might get a "No OS found" message after a while, but it's going to keep trying to boot that as long as it's plugged in. If you MUST leave that plugged in, then change the boot order to: CD-->HDD-->USB-->Network and I'll bet it works. Well, that is strange!!! It really says that BIOS is busted and does not have the good sense to realize the drive is not bootable - just as in the case of having an audio CD in the CD drive, and it ignores the presenc of the audio CD and moves on to the next item (USB drive), which is also not bootable, and none of it's partitions are marked bootable. I think that what I will resort to is unplugging the usb drive for the first few seconds to let the BIOS select internal HD and start the boot, then plugin in the USB drive. Sometimes, I do need to boot from a USB drive. I, also, occasionally need to boot off USB, but I have my boot sequence set up as I mentioned. On the rare occasions I have to boot from USB, THEN I use the F12 (or whatever) to select the boot drive. This is basic engineering practice: Default to normal, provide a way to bypass it when needed. That works too. But my BIOS is broken and I am surprised that Dell f* up on this. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/24/2015 05:47 PM, jd1008 wrote: On 06/24/2015 06:40 PM, Rick Stevens wrote: On 06/24/2015 05:36 PM, jd1008 wrote: On 06/24/2015 06:25 PM, Rick Stevens wrote: On 06/24/2015 05:07 PM, jd1008 wrote: On 06/24/2015 05:57 PM, Rick Stevens wrote: On 06/24/2015 04:25 PM, jd1008 wrote: Laptop: Dell Latitude E6510. OS: F20 with all updates Grub installed on sda. Power up ,and after bios's internal works, I do not get the grub menu. All I get is an empty screen with the underscore cursor blinking at upper left corner. Reboot. Press F12 to get the BIOS boot menu. Select Internal HDD Boots just fine. Looks like the BIOS' concept of the primary boot drive is different than "internal HDD". Check the boot order on the BIOS. Boot order is 1. CD drive 2. USB drive 3. Internal Drive 4. Network Ok, so do you have a CD in the drive or a USB drive plugged in? If so, it's going to try to boot from them first. OK, so how long before bios times out and move on to the internal HD? The usb drive, which is NOT bootable, has no booter installed, and neither one of it's partitions are bootable: # fdisk -l /dev/sdb Disk /dev/sdb: 1.8 TiB, 2000398933504 bytes, 3907029167 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 Disklabel type: dos Disk identifier: 0x1bc5003b DeviceBoot StartEnd Blocks Id System /dev/sdb32048 3890251950 1945124951+ 83 Linux /dev/sdb4 3890288670 39070291668370248+ 82 Linux swap / Solaris It's irrelevant. You might get a "No OS found" message after a while, but it's going to keep trying to boot that as long as it's plugged in. If you MUST leave that plugged in, then change the boot order to: CD-->HDD-->USB-->Network and I'll bet it works. Well, that is strange!!! It really says that BIOS is busted and does not have the good sense to realize the drive is not bootable - just as in the case of having an audio CD in the CD drive, and it ignores the presenc of the audio CD and moves on to the next item (USB drive), which is also not bootable, and none of it's partitions are marked bootable. I think that what I will resort to is unplugging the usb drive for the first few seconds to let the BIOS select internal HD and start the boot, then plugin in the USB drive. Sometimes, I do need to boot from a USB drive. I, also, occasionally need to boot off USB, but I have my boot sequence set up as I mentioned. On the rare occasions I have to boot from USB, THEN I use the F12 (or whatever) to select the boot drive. This is basic engineering practice: Default to normal, provide a way to bypass it when needed. -- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigitalri...@alldigital.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 226437340 Yahoo: origrps2 - -- -Is it progress if a cannibal uses a knife and fork? - - -- Stanislaw J. Lec - -- -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/24/2015 06:40 PM, Rick Stevens wrote: On 06/24/2015 05:36 PM, jd1008 wrote: On 06/24/2015 06:25 PM, Rick Stevens wrote: On 06/24/2015 05:07 PM, jd1008 wrote: On 06/24/2015 05:57 PM, Rick Stevens wrote: On 06/24/2015 04:25 PM, jd1008 wrote: Laptop: Dell Latitude E6510. OS: F20 with all updates Grub installed on sda. Power up ,and after bios's internal works, I do not get the grub menu. All I get is an empty screen with the underscore cursor blinking at upper left corner. Reboot. Press F12 to get the BIOS boot menu. Select Internal HDD Boots just fine. Looks like the BIOS' concept of the primary boot drive is different than "internal HDD". Check the boot order on the BIOS. Boot order is 1. CD drive 2. USB drive 3. Internal Drive 4. Network Ok, so do you have a CD in the drive or a USB drive plugged in? If so, it's going to try to boot from them first. OK, so how long before bios times out and move on to the internal HD? The usb drive, which is NOT bootable, has no booter installed, and neither one of it's partitions are bootable: # fdisk -l /dev/sdb Disk /dev/sdb: 1.8 TiB, 2000398933504 bytes, 3907029167 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 Disklabel type: dos Disk identifier: 0x1bc5003b DeviceBoot StartEnd Blocks Id System /dev/sdb32048 3890251950 1945124951+ 83 Linux /dev/sdb4 3890288670 39070291668370248+ 82 Linux swap / Solaris It's irrelevant. You might get a "No OS found" message after a while, but it's going to keep trying to boot that as long as it's plugged in. If you MUST leave that plugged in, then change the boot order to: CD-->HDD-->USB-->Network and I'll bet it works. Well, that is strange!!! It really says that BIOS is busted and does not have the good sense to realize the drive is not bootable - just as in the case of having an audio CD in the CD drive, and it ignores the presenc of the audio CD and moves on to the next item (USB drive), which is also not bootable, and none of it's partitions are marked bootable. I think that what I will resort to is unplugging the usb drive for the first few seconds to let the BIOS select internal HD and start the boot, then plugin in the USB drive. Sometimes, I do need to boot from a USB drive. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/24/2015 05:36 PM, jd1008 wrote: On 06/24/2015 06:25 PM, Rick Stevens wrote: On 06/24/2015 05:07 PM, jd1008 wrote: On 06/24/2015 05:57 PM, Rick Stevens wrote: On 06/24/2015 04:25 PM, jd1008 wrote: Laptop: Dell Latitude E6510. OS: F20 with all updates Grub installed on sda. Power up ,and after bios's internal works, I do not get the grub menu. All I get is an empty screen with the underscore cursor blinking at upper left corner. Reboot. Press F12 to get the BIOS boot menu. Select Internal HDD Boots just fine. Looks like the BIOS' concept of the primary boot drive is different than "internal HDD". Check the boot order on the BIOS. Boot order is 1. CD drive 2. USB drive 3. Internal Drive 4. Network Ok, so do you have a CD in the drive or a USB drive plugged in? If so, it's going to try to boot from them first. OK, so how long before bios times out and move on to the internal HD? The usb drive, which is NOT bootable, has no booter installed, and neither one of it's partitions are bootable: # fdisk -l /dev/sdb Disk /dev/sdb: 1.8 TiB, 2000398933504 bytes, 3907029167 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 Disklabel type: dos Disk identifier: 0x1bc5003b DeviceBoot StartEnd Blocks Id System /dev/sdb32048 3890251950 1945124951+ 83 Linux /dev/sdb4 3890288670 39070291668370248+ 82 Linux swap / Solaris It's irrelevant. You might get a "No OS found" message after a while, but it's going to keep trying to boot that as long as it's plugged in. If you MUST leave that plugged in, then change the boot order to: CD-->HDD-->USB-->Network and I'll bet it works. -- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigitalri...@alldigital.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 226437340 Yahoo: origrps2 - -- - "How does that damned three seashell thing work?" - - -- Sylvester Stallone, "Demolition Man" - -- -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/24/2015 06:25 PM, Rick Stevens wrote: On 06/24/2015 05:07 PM, jd1008 wrote: On 06/24/2015 05:57 PM, Rick Stevens wrote: On 06/24/2015 04:25 PM, jd1008 wrote: Laptop: Dell Latitude E6510. OS: F20 with all updates Grub installed on sda. Power up ,and after bios's internal works, I do not get the grub menu. All I get is an empty screen with the underscore cursor blinking at upper left corner. Reboot. Press F12 to get the BIOS boot menu. Select Internal HDD Boots just fine. Looks like the BIOS' concept of the primary boot drive is different than "internal HDD". Check the boot order on the BIOS. Boot order is 1. CD drive 2. USB drive 3. Internal Drive 4. Network Ok, so do you have a CD in the drive or a USB drive plugged in? If so, it's going to try to boot from them first. OK, so how long before bios times out and move on to the internal HD? The usb drive, which is NOT bootable, has no booter installed, and neither one of it's partitions are bootable: # fdisk -l /dev/sdb Disk /dev/sdb: 1.8 TiB, 2000398933504 bytes, 3907029167 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 Disklabel type: dos Disk identifier: 0x1bc5003b DeviceBoot StartEnd Blocks Id System /dev/sdb32048 3890251950 1945124951+ 83 Linux /dev/sdb4 3890288670 39070291668370248+ 82 Linux swap / Solaris -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/24/2015 06:24 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 06/25/2015 02:07 AM, jd1008 wrote: On 06/24/2015 05:57 PM, Rick Stevens wrote: On 06/24/2015 04:25 PM, jd1008 wrote: Laptop: Dell Latitude E6510. OS: F20 with all updates Grub installed on sda. Power up ,and after bios's internal works, I do not get the grub menu. All I get is an empty screen with the underscore cursor blinking at upper left corner. Reboot. Press F12 to get the BIOS boot menu. Select Internal HDD Boots just fine. Looks like the BIOS' concept of the primary boot drive is different than "internal HDD". Check the boot order on the BIOS. Boot order is 1. CD drive 2. USB drive 3. Internal Drive 4. Network Presuming this is a real BIOS system (not UEFI), my wild guess would be: You have a "malconfigured" grub installed in the MBR (/dev/sda) and a "configured" grub installed in /dev/sda. Should this reasoning apply, marking /dev/sda "bootable" (using gparted, fdisk etc.) should help. Ralf It IS set to bootable (sda3) But grub is on sda. # fdisk -l /dev/sda Disk /dev/sda: 931.5 GiB, 1000204886016 bytes, 1953525168 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 Disklabel type: dos Disk identifier: 0x0004ccd9 DeviceBoot StartEndBlocks Id System /dev/sda12048 83888127 41943040 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda283888128 84035583 73728 c W95 FAT32 (LBA) /dev/sda3 * 84035584 1919970735 917967576 83 Linux /dev/sda4 1919970736 1953525167 16777216 82 Linux swap / Solaris -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/25/2015 02:07 AM, jd1008 wrote: On 06/24/2015 05:57 PM, Rick Stevens wrote: On 06/24/2015 04:25 PM, jd1008 wrote: Laptop: Dell Latitude E6510. OS: F20 with all updates Grub installed on sda. Power up ,and after bios's internal works, I do not get the grub menu. All I get is an empty screen with the underscore cursor blinking at upper left corner. Reboot. Press F12 to get the BIOS boot menu. Select Internal HDD Boots just fine. Looks like the BIOS' concept of the primary boot drive is different than "internal HDD". Check the boot order on the BIOS. Boot order is 1. CD drive 2. USB drive 3. Internal Drive 4. Network Presuming this is a real BIOS system (not UEFI), my wild guess would be: You have a "malconfigured" grub installed in the MBR (/dev/sda) and a "configured" grub installed in /dev/sda. Should this reasoning apply, marking /dev/sda "bootable" (using gparted, fdisk etc.) should help. Ralf -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/24/2015 05:07 PM, jd1008 wrote: On 06/24/2015 05:57 PM, Rick Stevens wrote: On 06/24/2015 04:25 PM, jd1008 wrote: Laptop: Dell Latitude E6510. OS: F20 with all updates Grub installed on sda. Power up ,and after bios's internal works, I do not get the grub menu. All I get is an empty screen with the underscore cursor blinking at upper left corner. Reboot. Press F12 to get the BIOS boot menu. Select Internal HDD Boots just fine. Looks like the BIOS' concept of the primary boot drive is different than "internal HDD". Check the boot order on the BIOS. Boot order is 1. CD drive 2. USB drive 3. Internal Drive 4. Network Ok, so do you have a CD in the drive or a USB drive plugged in? If so, it's going to try to boot from them first. -- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigitalri...@alldigital.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 226437340 Yahoo: origrps2 - -- - NEWS FLASH! Intelligence of mankind decreasing! Details at... - - uh, when, uh, the little hand is, uh, on the... Aw, NUTS! - -- -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/24/2015 05:57 PM, Rick Stevens wrote: On 06/24/2015 04:25 PM, jd1008 wrote: Laptop: Dell Latitude E6510. OS: F20 with all updates Grub installed on sda. Power up ,and after bios's internal works, I do not get the grub menu. All I get is an empty screen with the underscore cursor blinking at upper left corner. Reboot. Press F12 to get the BIOS boot menu. Select Internal HDD Boots just fine. Looks like the BIOS' concept of the primary boot drive is different than "internal HDD". Check the boot order on the BIOS. Boot order is 1. CD drive 2. USB drive 3. Internal Drive 4. Network -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Strange booting problem
On 06/24/2015 04:25 PM, jd1008 wrote: Laptop: Dell Latitude E6510. OS: F20 with all updates Grub installed on sda. Power up ,and after bios's internal works, I do not get the grub menu. All I get is an empty screen with the underscore cursor blinking at upper left corner. Reboot. Press F12 to get the BIOS boot menu. Select Internal HDD Boots just fine. Looks like the BIOS' concept of the primary boot drive is different than "internal HDD". Check the boot order on the BIOS. -- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigitalri...@alldigital.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 226437340 Yahoo: origrps2 - -- - It is better to have loved and lost. Cheaper, too!- -- -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Strange booting problem
Laptop: Dell Latitude E6510. OS: F20 with all updates Grub installed on sda. Power up ,and after bios's internal works, I do not get the grub menu. All I get is an empty screen with the underscore cursor blinking at upper left corner. Reboot. Press F12 to get the BIOS boot menu. Select Internal HDD Boots just fine. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Dual booting problem
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:12:57 + Peter Moule wrote: > O.S. So I decided to try Fedora 14.I downloaded the live disc ,burnt to > C D and installed it on my Asus 1000 netbook. > My 160 gb. hard drive now looks like this: > sda1(18 gb) Mandriva 2010,sda5(19 gb) Fedora 14,sda6(3.6 gb) > swap,sda7(106 gb) home. > > But Fedora 14 does not appear on the boot menu,all I have there > is:Mandriva 2010,Mandriva (safe mode) and desktop 2.6.33-7. > My neighbour (and mentor) David Pipe did some research and found this > ;http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-newbie-8/grub-menu-lst-for-fedora-and-mandrake-dual-boot-301328/.But > has not yet worked out wether we can use this to solve the problem. > Anyone else have any ideas?Help will be much appreciated. If it isn't in the boot menu, you probably installed grub to the /boot partition of the Fedora installation. You need to add an entry to the menu.lst of the grub for mandrake that points to that boot partition. Here is an example title Fedora 14 configfile root (hd0,4) configfile /boot/grub/menu.lst This root should work for your layout above if the boot is part of / rather than separate for Fedora. This will bring up a second menu of boot options for F14 only when you select it. That is, you will first see the boot menu for Mandriva, then when you select the above entry, you will see the menu for Fedora. If it doesn't work, please post the contents of your mandriva /boot/grub/menu.lst file, and, if possible, the output of fdisk -l (it will list your partition table). -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Fwd: Dual booting problem
Original Message Subject:Dual booting problem Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:01:57 + From: Peter Moule Reply-To: petermou...@tiscali.co.uk To: Surrey Linux Users Group I have been looking for a replacement for Mandriva 2009 as my second O.S. So I decided to try Fedora 14.I downloaded the live disc ,burnt to C D and installed it on my Asus 1000 netbook. My 160 gb. hard drive now looks like this: sda1(18 gb) Mandriva 2010,sda5(19 gb) Fedora 14,sda6(3.6 gb) swap,sda7(106 gb) home. But Fedora 14 does not appear on the boot menu,all I have there is:Mandriva 2010,Mandriva (safe mode) and desktop 2.6.33-7. My neighbour (and mentor) David Pipe did some research and found this ;http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-newbie-8/grub-menu-lst-for-fedora-and-mandrake-dual-boot-301328/.But has not yet worked out wether we can use this to solve the problem. Anyone else have any ideas?Help will be much appreciated. Regards,Peter -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: FC4 BOOTING PROBLEM
On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 15:28 +0300, Aioanei Rares wrote: > Install windows first and Linux after if you want to dual-boot. To be pedantic, you don't have to, but that is the easiest way to do it, if you want the install routine to be able to automatically set things up for you. You can simply re-install the GRUB bootloader to the MBR, to let GRUB handle booting (giving you a choice of which OS to boot). Alternatively, if you're forever re-installing Windows, you could copy the GRUB bootblock to a file inside the Windows partition, and use the Windows boot manager to select which OS to boot. You wouldn't have to keep on fixing up the GRUB MBR, that way. -- [...@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: FC4 BOOTING PROBLEM
On 04/12/2010 02:41 PM, SALMAN AHMED wrote: I installed Fedora 4 on one of my computers sucessfully and using it very well , but after I installed windows XP boot loader options for FC4 disappered, although linux drives are still present as it is. Also on windows xp I have already activated list of operating systems visible for 20 seconds. But it did not work. should I have to install FC7 again or does any other solution for this instead of reinstalling Fedora. Please give opinion/recommendataions. Regards Salman 1. Install a supported version of Fedora. FC4 and FC7 are way too old. 2. Install windows first and Linux after if you want to dual-boot. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: FC4 BOOTING PROBLEM
I don't think that installing windows after linux is a good choice. Windows boot loader will not recognize linux. Below is some url's which should help you. http://fedoranews.org/contributors/bob_kashani/grub/ http://raynux.com/blog/2008/09/21/recovering-ubuntu-or-fedora-linux-after-installing-windows/ http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/how-to-restore-grub-after-win-xp-install-446952/ Hope this helps Cheers On 12 April 2010 17:11, SALMAN AHMED wrote: > I installed Fedora 4 on one of my computers sucessfully and using it very > well , but after I >installed windows XP boot loader options for FC4 disappered, although >linux drives are still present as it is. Also on windows xp I have > already >activated list of operating systems visible for 20 seconds. But it did > not >work. should I have to install FC7 again or does any other solution for > this instead of > reinstalling Fedora. Please give opinion/recommendataions. > > Regards > > Salman > > > -- > users mailing list > users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe or change subscription options: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users > Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > > -- ASHISH -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
