part of my kickstart file is now:
clearpart --all --initlabel
part --ondisk=sda raid.01 --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096
--fstype="raid" --onpart=sda1 --size=2
part --ondisk=sda swap--asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096
--fstype="swap" --onpart=sda2 --size=4000
part --ondisk=sda raid.02
Jerry Geis wrote:
part of my kickstart file is now:
clearpart --all --initlabel
part --ondisk=sda raid.01 --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096
--fstype="raid" --onpart=sda1 --size=2
part --ondisk=sda swap--asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096
--fstype="swap" --onpart=sda2 --size=4000
part --
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jerry Geis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> part of my kickstart file is now:
>
> clearpart --all --initlabel
> part --ondisk=sda raid.01 --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096
> --fstype="raid" --onpart=sda1 --size=2
> part --ondisk=sda swap--asprimary --bytes-per
Jerry Geis wrote:
>
> part of my kickstart file is now:
>
> clearpart --all --initlabel
> part --ondisk=sda raid.01 --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="raid"
> --onpart=sda1 --size=2
> part --ondisk=sda swap--asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="swap"
> --onpart=sda2 --si
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 at 4:23pm, Jerry Geis wrote
clearpart --all --initlabel
part --ondisk=sda raid.01 --asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="raid"
--onpart=sda1 --size=2
part --ondisk=sda swap--asprimary --bytes-per-inode=4096 --fstype="swap"
--onpart=sda2 --size=4000
part --ondi
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 at 4:32pm, Ross S. W. Walker wrote
I think you might be missing a little something in there, like /boot?
/boot is not required to be its own partition. In the days of yore, when
BIOSes couldn't boot from partitions the crossed the 1024 cylinder
barrier, it made sense to
Jerry Geis wrote:
I changed the config to use --ondisk above and at install I get a
message saying:
"Unable to locate partition sda1 to use for ."
Press OK to reboot your system.
I'm guessing it is because the partition tables don't exist.
It seems that --onpart doesn't actually create part
Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 at 4:32pm, Ross S. W. Walker wrote
>
> > I think you might be missing a little something in there, like /boot?
>
> /boot is not required to be its own partition. In the days of yore, when
> BIOSes couldn't boot from partitions the crossed the 102
Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 at 4:32pm, Ross S. W. Walker wrote
I think you might be missing a little something in there, like /boot?
/boot is not required to be its own partition. In the days of yore,
when BIOSes couldn't boot from partitions the crossed the 1024 cylinder
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008, Les Mikesell wrote:
>Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
>>On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 at 4:32pm, Ross S. W. Walker wrote
>>
>>>I think you might be missing a little something in there, like /boot?
>>
>>/boot is not required to be its own partition. In the days of yore,
>>when BIOSes couldn'
On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 15:50 -0700, Bill Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2008, Les Mikesell wrote:
> >Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
> >>On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 at 4:32pm, Ross S. W. Walker wrote
> >>
> I used to use the separate /boot partition, but quit when the 1024 sector
> problem was solved, mostly
11 matches
Mail list logo