[sle-beta] SLES15 beta 6, initial observation

[Joe Doupnik]

     Fresh installation, found again the new /boot message. Here are 
screen captures:



     And after saying No, we again see the underlying layout:


     No UEFI choices were selected. Going to the lower right corner 
"Expert" button and saying please recreate the partitioning, and there 
selecting the classical non-UEFI mode, the same /boot popup occurs.


     Enlarging /boot to be 256MB does not change the results. Thus the 
message remains obscure.
     I am selecting to continue the installation to see what happens.
     Thanks,
     Joe D.


On 05/02/2018 09:08, Joe Doupnik wrote:
> On 04/02/2018 23:07, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 04, Joe Doupnik wrote:
>>
>>>      The second test was with one CD, as just mentioned. The 
>>> peculiar item
>>> observed thus far was when partitioning. I said please redo the 
>>> layout with
>>> the offered existing partitions, I removed all shown for the only 
>>> drive, and
>>> I created my usual three of BOOT (/boot, EXT2, 128MB), SWAP (swap, 
>>> 512MB),
>>> and ROOT (/, 6.xGB).
>> No idea why people still use this extra /boot partition. This has not
>> a single advantage, but a lot of disadvantages.
>> Nobody would come to the idea to put /lib64 with libc and everything
>> on an extra partition, so why divide the kernel or bootloader in two
>> parts and put them on two different partitions? This only makes trouble
>> and was only necessary in the past for broken BIOS versions. But that
>> problem should have gone long ago.
>>
>>    Thorsten
>>
> -------------
>     To clarify matters for Thorsten and other readers. A while ago I 
> covered similar territory.
>     The /boot story as I relate it goes like this. With earlier SLES 
> editions I created a two partition scheme, root (/, XFS) and swap. 
> That worked until a kernel upgrade was installed and then the system 
> would not boot. I infer the reason was the new initrd did not have the 
> XFS intelligence. Additionally, if that root had outstanding journal 
> entries at boot time then grub would be unable to perform them because 
> root was mounted read-only at that moment. Consequently the system may 
> not boot.
>     These aspects are not BIOS related, yet reaching a bootable 
> partition can be BIOS dependent which is why a bootable partition 
> should be created before other large partitions.
>     However, if I create a boot partition, type EXT2 (no journal, no 
> XFS), followed by swap and root (XFS) partitions then all is well 
> through patches and major upgrades. My surmise is composition of a 
> workable initrd and relatives is the key factor, with their 
> understanding of XFS being an important thread.
>     That's been my experience. Details today may have changed and to 
> know would take a bunch of validation experiments. I know this can 
> seem to be a reactionary view, but setting aside BTRFS the problem has 
> been real enough for a long time and is easily avoided by having the 
> /boot partition. Further, using a /boot partition ought not clobber a 
> new SLES and certainly should not be a notable disadvantage.
>
>     For SLES 15 beta 6, there is that new /boot popup complaint 
> message to learn about. My memory says there could have been two 
> disks, sda and sdb, shown in the partition menu, even though only one 
> hard disk was created for the ESXi virtual machine, and the sdb one 
> had a boot reference. That's my vague memory. At this moment I have 
> restarted that test virtual machine after removing the second CD 
> drive. It did not boot, saying no o/s, but I could enter Rescue mode. 
> After poking about the boot partition (sda1) I did not find a menu.lst 
> file which is normally present for SLES11 and prior. I am about to 
> remove that virtual machine and rebuild with only one CD drive. In any 
> case, the double CD drive presence during installation has led to 
> trouble in beta 6, plus that new /boot popup message.
>     Thanks,
>     Joe D.
>
> _______________________________________________
> sle-beta mailing list
> sle-beta at lists.suse.com
> http://lists.suse.com/mailman/listinfo/sle-beta

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.suse.com/pipermail/sle-beta/attachments/20180205/b1f42a96/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: kdnlehjgnmoedhoh.png
Type: image/png
Size: 129480 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.suse.com/pipermail/sle-beta/attachments/20180205/b1f42a96/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: fncnbfeehadmgfjk.png
Type: image/png
Size: 150848 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.suse.com/pipermail/sle-beta/attachments/20180205/b1f42a96/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bkjocmhgdeijdldg.png
Type: image/png
Size: 10816 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.suse.com/pipermail/sle-beta/attachments/20180205/b1f42a96/attachment-0002.png>