Re: Strange Boot Behavior (cont.)

Re: Strange Boot Behavior (cont.)

[beolach]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 08:48:29 -0700 Ray Olszewski <ray@comarre.com>
writes:
> At 08:22 AM 8/22/2003 -0700, Christopher Swope wrote:
> [...]
> > > Have you tried putting the old drive on the Secondary IDE 
> channel?
> > > (In
> > > practice, this workaround may be your best bet.)
> >
> >I didn't.  Can one put a hard drive and CDROM on the same channel?  
> I
> >thought that that was not advised.
> 
> Well, I don't know what information source you are referring to, but 
> I know 
> of no problem with doing this, either in theory or in practice ... I 
> do it 
> myself here. There can be timing problems with CD *writing* if you 
> put a CD 
> *burner* on the same channel as a hard disk, *AND* you try to burn 
> an iso 
> image from that hard disk. But even that isn't a sure problem, just 
> a risk.
> 

As I understand it, there could be a performance loss when a hard disk
and a CD-ROM are attached to the same IDE Channel.  On some (most?) IDE
controllers, each IDE channel has to use the same transfer rate for all
devices attached, using the slowest of the two.  So if you attach a
UDMA100 harddisk to the same channel as a UDMA33 CD-ROM, you may only
get 1/3 of the theoretical potential performance of your harddrive.  So
I wouldn't recommend this configuration for a long term solution, but
for testing purposes in troubleshooting boot problems, there should not
be any major problems with a hard disk & CD-ROM on the same channel.

One question I had as I followed this thread was about the jumper
settings you described in an earlier message...

> Note also that I have tested nearly every jumper setting for the
> secondary drive.  The only option I did not try was setting the
> secondary drive to master w/ slave present.  That setting requires
> two jumpers, and I don't have an extra one.

In my experience with hard drives (admitibly no more extensive than
normal) I have never seen a jumper configuration that required two
jumpers; or even more that three settings: Master, Slave, and CS.  The
jumper settings are of course manufacturer & drive specific, so you
probably know better than me, but I am curious about what brand/model
the drives are.  And it can't hurt to double (or quadruple... I think
you said you've already done this) check the documentation on the jumper
settings.

Wish you luck,
Conway S. Smith

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs

Strange Boot Behavior (cont.)

[Christopher Swope]

Hello again,

Can anyone tell me if there is an easy way to reply on-list.  Several
people have responded to my first inquiry, and I expected the
reply-to address to be the list email, but it was their personal
emails instead.

Anyway, I would like to address some of the concerns brought up in
those emails.  My initial hunch was that there was a problem with the
jumpers, but I checked several times to make sure they were okay. 
Nonetheless, after three separate people replied suggesting that I
check the jumpers, I went back just to be sure.  Sure enough, the
jumpers were right.  I did run a little jumper experiment, however,
and here are the results:

If the settings are any of the following, the drives are not
recognized at all.  (These results are not surprising).
    Primary -- Master w/ Slave present
    Secondary -- Cable Select

    Primary -- Master w/ Slave Present
    Secondary -- Master

    Primary -- Anything other than "Master (Single Drive)"
    Secondary -- Not installed

If the settings are any of the following, I get the behavior I
described earlier.
    Primary -- Cable Select
    Secondary -- Slave

    Primary -- Master w/ Slave Present
    Secondary -- Slave

    Primary -- Master (Single Drive)
    Secondary -- Slave

Now, my line of thinking is as follows.

If the second drive is not installed at all, the computer boots
normally.  This would indicate the problem stems from connecting the
second drive.

The computer can be successfully booted from a floppy boot disk. 
Then, both drives can be read from and written to.  This would
indicate that there is nothing wrong with the Cables.

Note also that I have tested nearly every jumper setting for the
secondary drive.  The only option I did not try was setting the
secondary drive to master w/ slave present.  That setting requires
two jumpers, and I don't have an extra one.  I highly doubt, however,
that  that configuration would work.  Thus, if I were setting the
jumpers on the second drive wrong, one of the other options should
have worked.

Finally, I would like to provide some answers to questions that have
come up or might come up:

How old is the BIOS?

I have the latest revision.  It was released sometime in 2000.

Are you sure the BIOS is correct?

Yes.

Do you have confidence in the BIOS?

Not really, but the computer does boot sometimes.

How big is the new hard drive?

80G

The old one?

4G

Have you used two hard drives on the system before?

Yes, but not with this revision of the BIOS.

There is probably more information I could provide still, so if you
want to know, please ask.

Thanks again for your help,
Christopher
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs

Re: Strange Boot Behavior (cont.)

[Ray Olszewski]

At 10:49 PM 8/21/2003 -0700, Christopher Swope wrote:
>Hello again,
>
>Can anyone tell me if there is an easy way to reply on-list.

It depends on your standard for "easy". What I do is a "reply to all", then 
delete the unwanted addresses by hand. I don't know any easier way to reply 
to the list.

>Several
>people have responded to my first inquiry, and I expected the
>reply-to address to be the list email, but it was their personal
>emails instead.

Are you new to Linux (or at least to Linux mailing lists)? Whether you like 
the behavior of this list or not (and please do not read this comment as my 
expressing an opinion or encouraging the start of a debate on it), it is 
fairly common, though not universal, behavior for Linux lists. Some people 
like it. Others learn to live with it. There are no other options (for 
dealing with this list, I mean).

[...]
>Now, my line of thinking is as follows.
>
>If the second drive is not installed at all, the computer boots
>normally.  This would indicate the problem stems from connecting the
>second drive.

Hard to quarrel with this (or the rest of your diagnosis, deleted here). 
Could be a BIOS problem. Could be a problem with one or the other of the 
drives. Almost surely is not a Linux or GRUB problem.

Have you tried using fdisk to make the old drive non-bootable?

In the BIOS, is your boot order something sensible?

Have you tried putting the old drive on the Secondary IDE channel? (In 
practice, this workaround may be your best bet.)

Oh, one more thing. You wrote:

>The computer can be successfully booted from a floppy boot disk.
>Then, both drives can be read from and written to.  This would
>indicate that there is nothing wrong with the Cables.

You do know, I trust, that the Linux kernel does not rely on the BIOS to 
access hard disks. So this observation **may** indicate that your BIOS is 
the source of the problem.



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs

Re: Strange Boot Behavior (cont.)

[Christopher Swope]

> 
> It depends on your standard for "easy". What I do is a "reply to
> all", then 
> delete the unwanted addresses by hand. I don't know any easier way
> to reply 
> to the list.

I would consider that an easy solution.  Thank you.
 
> Are you new to Linux (or at least to Linux mailing lists)? Whether
> you like 
> the behavior of this list or not (and please do not read this
> comment as my 
> expressing an opinion or encouraging the start of a debate on it),
> it is 
> fairly common, though not universal, behavior for Linux lists. Some
> people 
> like it. Others learn to live with it. There are no other options
> (for 
> dealing with this list, I mean).

Not that new that the former, but fairly new to the latter.  I just
thought it was considered somewhat rude to reply to someone off-list.
 
> Hard to quarrel with this (or the rest of your diagnosis, deleted
> here). 
> Could be a BIOS problem. Could be a problem with one or the other
> of the 
> drives. Almost surely is not a Linux or GRUB problem.

Well, that's pretty much answer's my question.

> Have you tried using fdisk to make the old drive non-bootable?

Yep.

> In the BIOS, is your boot order something sensible?

Depends on what you call sensible.  The options are limited, but I
have chosen the best one from those available.

> Have you tried putting the old drive on the Secondary IDE channel?
> (In 
> practice, this workaround may be your best bet.)

I didn't.  Can one put a hard drive and CDROM on the same channel?  I
thought that that was not advised.

> Oh, one more thing. You wrote:
> 
> >The computer can be successfully booted from a floppy boot disk.
> >Then, both drives can be read from and written to.  This would
> >indicate that there is nothing wrong with the Cables.
> 
> You do know, I trust, that the Linux kernel does not rely on the
> BIOS to 
> access hard disks. So this observation **may** indicate that your
> BIOS is 
> the source of the problem.

Actually, I suspected that, but I wasn't sure.  (This is the newbie
list :-)).

My initial hunch was that it was either the BIOS or GRUB.  I had to
do a differential diagnosis, and I had better luck making sure there
was nothing wrong with GRUB than making sure there was nothing wrong
with the BIOS.  If it was not already obvious, I don't have much
confidence in the BIOS.  (The computer was an inherited piece of crap
that I wanted so I could play around with Linux).  

So if you could let me know about that CDROM/Hard drive being on the
same channel question, I would appreciate it.  Other than that, we
can  consider this issue resolved.

Thanks again for you help,
Christopher
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs

Re: Strange Boot Behavior (cont.)

[Ray Olszewski]

At 08:22 AM 8/22/2003 -0700, Christopher Swope wrote:
[...]
>Not that new that the former, but fairly new to the latter.  I just
>thought it was considered somewhat rude to reply to someone off-list.

It usually is ... though as with almost anything involving courtesy issues, 
some people probably feel differently.

The reason why this list (and many others) does not use Reply-to: to 
redirect to the list is more technical than that. I haven't looked at this 
issue in years, so I no longer trust my memory of the idetails well enough 
to try to discuss them. Do a Google search on "reply-to munging evil" and 
you will probably find the sites set up by the people who feel strongly 
about this issue.

[...]
> > Have you tried putting the old drive on the Secondary IDE channel?
> > (In
> > practice, this workaround may be your best bet.)
>
>I didn't.  Can one put a hard drive and CDROM on the same channel?  I
>thought that that was not advised.

Well, I don't know what information source you are referring to, but I know 
of no problem with doing this, either in theory or in practice ... I do it 
myself here. There can be timing problems with CD *writing* if you put a CD 
*burner* on the same channel as a hard disk, *AND* you try to burn an iso 
image from that hard disk. But even that isn't a sure problem, just a risk.



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs

Strange Boot Behavior (cont.)

[Warren Hrach]

Originally to: Christopher Swope

> Hello again,

> Can anyone tell me if there is an easy way to reply on-list.  Several
> people have responded to my first inquiry, and I expected the
> reply-to address to be the list email, but it was their personal
> emails instead.

> Anyway, I would like to address some of the concerns brought up in
> those emails.  My initial hunch was that there was a problem with the
> jumpers, but I checked several times to make sure they were okay.
> Nonetheless, after three separate people replied suggesting that I
> check the jumpers, I went back just to be sure.  Sure enough, the
> jumpers were right.  I did run a little jumper experiment, however,
> and here are the results:

> If the settings are any of the following, the drives are not
> recognized at all.  (These results are not surprising).
> Primary -- Master w/ Slave present
> Secondary -- Cable Select

> Primary -- Master w/ Slave Present
> Secondary -- Master

> Primary -- Anything other than "Master (Single Drive)"
> Secondary -- Not installed

> If the settings are any of the following, I get the behavior I
> described earlier.
> Primary -- Cable Select
> Secondary -- Slave

> Primary -- Master w/ Slave Present
> Secondary -- Slave

> Primary -- Master (Single Drive)
> Secondary -- Slave

> Now, my line of thinking is as follows.

> If the second drive is not installed at all, the computer boots
> normally.  This would indicate the problem stems from connecting the
> second drive.

> The computer can be successfully booted from a floppy boot disk.
> Then, both drives can be read from and written to.  This would
> indicate that there is nothing wrong with the Cables.

I think here is the key info needed.  If you were using Lilo it would mean that 
the boot info in the lilo.conf is not updated. All that is needed to fix that is 
boot from floppy and then run 'lilo' as root.  Grub may have similar needs.

Warren Hrach, 'warren11@cox.net'

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs

Re: Strange Boot Behavior (cont.)

[Ken Moffat]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Warren Hrach wrote:

>
> I think here is the key info needed.  If you were using Lilo it would mean that
> the boot info in the lilo.conf is not updated. All that is needed to fix that is
> boot from floppy and then run 'lilo' as root.  Grub may have similar needs.
>

 True for lilo, but not for grub.

Ken
-- 
 Peace, love, linux



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs

Strange Boot Behavior (cont.)

[Robert Couture]

Originally to: Christopher Swope

Hello Christopher.

21 Aug 03 22:49, you wrote to all:

CS|> If the settings are any of the following, the drives are not
CS|> recognized at all.  (These results are not surprising).
CS|>     Primary -- Master w/ Slave present
CS|>     Secondary -- Cable Select

CS|>     Primary -- Master w/ Slave Present
CS|>     Secondary -- Master

CS|>     Primary -- Anything other than "Master (Single Drive)"
CS|>     Secondary -- Not installed

CS|> If the settings are any of the following, I get the behavior I
CS|> described earlier.
CS|>     Primary -- Cable Select
CS|>     Secondary -- Slave

CS|>     Primary -- Master w/ Slave Present
CS|>     Secondary -- Slave

CS|>     Primary -- Master (Single Drive)
CS|>     Secondary -- Slave

CS|> Now, my line of thinking is as follows.

CS|> If the second drive is not installed at all, the computer boots
CS|> normally.  This would indicate the problem stems from connecting the
CS|> second drive.

I just jumped into this thread.  But what you say hear makes me think that the 
drives are not compatible.  While rarer these days, I recall the days when 
certain drives just would not function together regardless of what you did.

Perhaps the older 4G drive just will not work with the new drive?  It seems to 
be possible.

Will the 80G drive function alone?

What are the makes?  Sorry if you already answered this.  I just caught the 
thread at this point.

Robert

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs

Re: Strange Boot Behavior (cont.)

[Hal MacArgle]

On 08-29, Hal MacArgle wrote:
  Greetings: FWIW I had two Fuji IDE drives, 4.3 and 3.X that would;
  absolutely, positively NOT co-exit no matter the jumpers or two
  machines I tried them on..
  
  So, it seems, that non-compatibility is alive and well even in the
  same household..
  
      Hal - in Terra Alta, WV - Slackware GNU/Linux 8.0   (2.4.18)
                  Proprietary  Formats  Unacceptable
  
  On 08-24, Robert Couture wrote:
    
    CS|  If the second drive is not installed at all, the computer boots
    CS|  normally.  This would indicate the problem stems from connecting the
    CS|  second drive.
    
    I just jumped into this thread.  But what you say hear makes me think that the 
    drives are not compatible.  While rarer these days, I recall the days when 
    certain drives just would not function together regardless of what you did.
    
    Perhaps the older 4G drive just will not work with the new drive?  It seems to 
    be possible.
    
    Will the 80G drive function alone?
    
    What are the makes?  Sorry if you already answered this.  I just caught the 
    thread at this point.
    
    Robert
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs

Re: Strange Boot Behavior (cont.)

[Heimo Claasen]

That gets really interesting - for weeks now I had to wrestle with
similar symptoms in a slighly different setup, namely a CF-card adapter
as slave on the second IDE channel: the moment a flash-card is inserted
there (and duely recognized by the BIOS), Linux does not want to see the
Secondary Master (again: correctly seen by the BIOS) on that 2nd IDE
channel any more.
The kernel used is 2.4.18. Another prefix: That box does boot well from
the first HD in any condition.

We did not find any explanation yet; however, someone [in another
discussion group] remembered that there _was_ an IDE channel
recognition problem for a while with more recent kernels (2.4.x) for a
while which came alight specificly with those CF-cards. (They behave
"like" IDE-disks according to specifications but apparently with still
some differences); the same poster said that this would have gone
since - but he couldn't give more precise references.

At the moment I'm stuck with this (on that machine) - when I want to read
out a CF-card, I cannot access the second HD ("secondary master" on the
second IDE MoBo connector) at the same time. Note that DOS boots well
on/from any of the drives connected and present (there's a small DOS on
on of the CF-cards too.)

In the course of this search it became clear, BTW, that the _kernel_
(thus, not LILO or GRUB) quite well reads out the BIOS data but then
sets its own IDE definitions and routines - which is where the drive
suddenly vanishes mysteriously (eysy to be seen in the bootup messages.)

Finally, a CDROM drivde as slave either on the first or second IDE bus
has never been of a problem.

So back to initial problem of Christophers', that the box doesn't stat
up at all:

A jumper problem should be visible in the way the BIOS messages come up
(or not at all) - if it's stuck before the end of the normal” suite of
BIOS messages, then there's weither a connection (cable) or jumper
conflict. If it's stuck thereafter - when the kernel takes over and
runs its test, or at or before loading Linux, there's a good
probability that it doesn't find the MBR, for whatever reason

(With LILO this is evident when booting stops with a "LI..." [no "...LO"]
message.)

Still another question, Christopher: did you try to connect the second HD
to the second IDE connector on the _Motherboard_ ? (It should be
jumpered as "master" then but "cable select" should work too, if no
other IDE device is on that second cable.)

A very last problem source could be the band-cable itself: there are
two types, one with 40, the other with 80 leads; but both have the
same 40-pin connectors. (Hmm - anyone who knows how _that_ goes about ?)
Seems that some "modern" (E)IDE controllers need the latter cable type
with some specific - "E(nhanced)IDE" ?  - drives.

(Maybe that's the explanation too for the "temporary 2.4.x" symptom -
that it reads too specificly some control line there which is not served
with the most common 40-lead cable ?)

// Heimo Claasen // <hammer at revobild dot net> // Brussels 2003-08-22
The WebPlace of ReRead - and much to read  ==>  http://www.revobild.net

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs