Results 11 to 20 of 64
What does Code: grub find /boot/vmlinuz report. Also what is the output of fdisk -l ?...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
- 12-24-2008 #11
grub find /boot/vmlinuz
- 12-24-2008 #12
Hi, Jonathan! Thanks for looking in
Here is fdisk -l:
Disk /dev/hda: 20.0 GB, 20020396032 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 2434 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/hda1 1 1651 13261626 83 Linux /dev/hda2 1652 2434 6289447+ 83 Linux Disk /dev/hdb: 20.0 GB, 20020396032 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 2434 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/hdb1 1 1040 8353768+ 83 Linux /dev/hdb2 1302 2434 9100822+ 83 Linux
Kernel panic - not syncing: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on unknown-block(3,1)
- 12-25-2008 #13
Both partitions hda1 and hdb1 look to exceed the 1024 cylinder limit so would have expected both OS boot to fail if that was the issue.
Do you have to pass the kernel a root parameter ? most of the systems I have used (didn't use Crux) require root=/dev/sda1 or whatever. Has this requirement been introduced with 2.5? I have had similar kernel panic without root correctly specified (or without the file system kernel drivers in the kernel - tripped up in Gentoo with this using loadable modules).
May be worth trying something like
kernel /boot/grub/vmlinuz root=/dev/hda1
Ed: I'll break Arch and see what the message is ... Arch did not produce the same message ... came back with something like ramfs$ Breaking Gentoo gives a similar message to the one you get - just different block device reference
- 12-25-2008 #14
I was starting to wonder about boot parameters, but only cuz my hardware is a tad on the older side. I'll try your suggestion and get back!
I tried what you suggested and got the same error message back. I'll try to find more info on whether or not the 2.5 kernel requires any parameters.
- 12-25-2008 #15
- 12-25-2008 #16
Good question... maybe a dumb answer, though.
I think I built it in. How would I check?
By the way, I ran across an older thread that mentioned running fsck on the drive, and it came back clean.
- 12-25-2008 #17
Go back in to the point of making menuconfig. When the menu comes up, go to that particular place and check it. If it's built as a module, re do and compile it into the kernel instead. But if you copied the .config from your 2.4 (and assuming support for ext3 was built into the kernel there) it should have gotten built the same. Are you using ext3 in 2.4 as well?
EDIT: In menuconfig, look in "file systems." File support for ext3 should have a star beside it instead of an 'm.'
- 12-25-2008 #18
Okay, here goes. First, I've always used ext3, on every install I've ever had. And nothing was copied over from 2.4 to this one... fresh installation all the way.
I went into menuconfig, there are 4 options concerning ext3, all of which are built-in (have stars).
My hardware is a little old, being a PIII Coppermine. I also selected some stuff for older hardware in the complie, but I did the same for 2.4.
- 12-25-2008 #19
- 12-25-2008 #20