<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"> Fresh installation, found again the
new /boot message. Here are screen captures:<br>
<br>
<img src="cid:part1.F397179D.FAE8DF2A@netlab1.net" alt=""
height="321" width="709"><br>
<br>
And after saying No, we again see the underlying layout:<br>
<img src="cid:part2.B36D5AD0.C8BE8700@netlab1.net" alt=""
height="359" width="711"><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<img src="cid:part3.9823D685.4F4AF414@netlab1.net" alt=""><br>
<br>
Enlarging /boot to be 256MB does not change the results. Thus
the message remains obscure.<br>
I am selecting to continue the installation to see what
happens.<br>
Thanks,<br>
Joe D.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 05/02/2018 09:08, Joe Doupnik wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6732d4ad-5186-e5dc-c88e-fb300ca62fc0@netlab1.net">On
04/02/2018 23:07, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On Sun, Feb 04, Joe Doupnik wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> The second test was with one CD, as
just mentioned. The peculiar item
<br>
observed thus far was when partitioning. I said please redo
the layout with
<br>
the offered existing partitions, I removed all shown for the
only drive, and
<br>
I created my usual three of BOOT (/boot, EXT2, 128MB), SWAP
(swap, 512MB),
<br>
and ROOT (/, 6.xGB).
<br>
</blockquote>
No idea why people still use this extra /boot partition. This
has not
<br>
a single advantage, but a lot of disadvantages.
<br>
Nobody would come to the idea to put /lib64 with libc and
everything
<br>
on an extra partition, so why divide the kernel or bootloader in
two
<br>
parts and put them on two different partitions? This only makes
trouble
<br>
and was only necessary in the past for broken BIOS versions. But
that
<br>
problem should have gone long ago.
<br>
<br>
Thorsten
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
-------------
<br>
To clarify matters for Thorsten and other readers. A while ago
I covered similar territory.
<br>
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.
<br>
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.
<br>
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.
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
Thanks,
<br>
Joe D.
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
sle-beta mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:sle-beta@lists.suse.com">sle-beta@lists.suse.com</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.suse.com/mailman/listinfo/sle-beta">http://lists.suse.com/mailman/listinfo/sle-beta</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>