[sle-beta] SLES15 beta 6, initial observation

[Joe Doupnik]

     Pre-pending here the results of the current installation process.
     This time I ticked the menu boot area item saying install the boot 
material into the MBR, rather than the default setting of in the /boot 
partition. The system has rebooted properly to complete the installation 
process. Thus there appears to be some difficulty in that area of the 
installation material.
     Thanks,
     Joe D.

On 05/02/2018 09:58, Joe Doupnik wrote:
>     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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180205/4f7fec1e/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/20180205/4f7fec1e/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/20180205/4f7fec1e/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/20180205/4f7fec1e/attachment-0002.png>