mailing-lists at hughesjr.com
Sat Nov 5 00:56:19 UTC 2005
On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 19:49 -0500, Sam Drinkard wrote:
> This afternoon, after my fiasco with the other machine, I decided to
> bring the drive home and install it in the primary machine here, boot
> from the normal drive, then mount the 4.1 i386 drive so I could make
> changes and check things. What happened next was totally unexpected.
> After decompressing the kernel and starting the boot, there were all
> kinds of error messages scrolling off the screen, and so fast, I could
> not see what it was all about, but the boot halted at some point. After
> seeing that, I decided maybe it was not a good idea after all, but I'd
> done the same thing with an i386 version 3.5 with no problems.
> Is there some reason why I should not be able to boot from my normal
> drive, CentOS 4.2 x86_64, but still have the 4.1 i386 version on a
> secondary drive, even tho it was not automounted?
Yes ... If you allowed anaconda to label the drives, then both of the
drives probably have the same label.
You can change your /etc/fstab to mount the device names and not the
labels (and make sure your /boot/grub/grub.conf uses device names and
or change the labels on the second drive using e2lable and either change
it back before you boot from it later, or change the references in
the /boot/grub/grub.conf and /etc/fstab.
> Also, while on the subject, I found out that a FreeBSD drive is not
> mountable under Linux. It recognized the drive as a Sun ufs drive.
> Don't suppose there is any way around that problem is there?
I think that the centosplus kernel can read, but not write to some
versions of FreeBSD (ufs) file systems.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20051104/cab7d188/attachment.bin
More information about the CentOS