Hello All Anyone have a workaround for booting the 5.2 LiveCD? I'm getting this error:
no root yet, udev rule will write symlink
Then I drop to a shell, with a message to create a symlink to /dev/root and then exit the shell. There is also a message that it cannot find the root filesystem.
Is there a way to disable udev with grub? Thanks
Tblader wrote on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 08:50:48 -0500:
Anyone have a workaround for booting the 5.2 LiveCD? I'm getting this error:
no root yet, udev rule will write symlinkThen I drop to a shell, with a message to create a symlink to /dev/root and then exit the shell.
And that is really the original, downloaded live CD and it *is* booting from a CD/DVD drive?
Kai
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Tblader wrote on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 08:50:48 -0500:
Anyone have a workaround for booting the 5.2 LiveCD? I'm getting this error:
no root yet, udev rule will write symlinkThen I drop to a shell, with a message to create a symlink to /dev/root and then exit the shell.
And that is really the original, downloaded live CD and it *is* booting from a CD/DVD drive?
Kai
Could you please provide a description of the components in the system you are trying to boot it in? Do you have at least 256-512 MB of RAM?
Michael, next time, could you please reply to the original post instead of hooking in to others?
Kai
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Michael, next time, could you please reply to the original post instead of hooking in to others?
Kai
What do you mean by this? Is this because you changed the original post and you thought I was replying to the other part of the original post.
I was responding to the current thread running which was off of the original post. Are you saying everyone should create a new thread path from the original post each time instead of keeping a thread going to get a solution solved? This would make it a great pain to find answers if everyone had to start from scratch every time when they posted. No one else has been asked to do this. I was just elaborating on your post to get more detail to aid in a solution.
Michael Peterson wrote on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:44:43 -0500:
What do you mean by this? Is this because you changed the original post and you thought I was replying to the other part of the original post.
Sorry? I did not "change" anything. You replied to *my* posting with questions to the original poster and with *nothing* that referred to my posting. Do you do the same in face-to-face discussion? Person A has a problem and asks something in a round, Person B replies and you then ask person B for further information about the problem that person A has? Really? Won't you rather address person A directly?
Are you saying everyone should create a new thread path from the original post each time
not each time, it depends on the natural flow of discussion. I think this should be obvious.
instead of keeping a thread going to get a solution solved?
Simply reply to that posting that you refer to. That could be the root posting or any posting down the thread. Again, it depends what you refer to. If you think that a thread is built by appending the next posting always to the previous posting and it's a neverending single chain of postings, then you got it wrong.
This would make it a great pain to find answers if everyone had to start from scratch every time when they posted.
Not at all. It organizes the thread in the natural flow of discussion. This is not a forum, which often are built on top of broken software that doesn't know anything about flow of discussion - e.g. they are unthreaded. If you got this bad habit from forums - get rid of it! Even in most forums you can quote correctly and thus indicate which posting you refer to although they might all be chained together.
No one else has been asked to do this.
I asked you because you used *my* posting as a root instead of the correct posting and so I immediately recognized it as it came in as a follow-up to me but wasn't one. I'm sure not scrutenizing each and every posting for this. Most people here do understand threading.
Kai
Could you please provide a description of the components in the system you are trying to boot it in? Do you have at least 256-512 MB of RAM?
Hi, The CD/DVD image was downloaded from mirrors.gigenet: http://mirrors.gigenet.com/centos/5/isos/i386/CentOS-5.2-i386-LiveCD.iso
The system is an Asus m2n-e mainboard, amd x2 6400, 8 gig of ram. It's got and LSI 8704 ELP raid card, a couple of realtek gig nics and SATA dvd drive.
tblader wrote:
The system is an Asus m2n-e mainboard, amd x2 6400, 8 gig of ram. It's got and LSI 8704 ELP raid card, a couple of realtek gig nics and SATA dvd drive.
My home desktop machine is an M2N-E Mobo, and works fine with the LiveCD.
[root@chamkaur ~]# dmidecode | grep -i m2n-e Version: ASUS M2N-E SLI ACPI BIOS Revision 0801 Product Name: M2N-E SLI
I dont have an LSI interface though... I've got one of these: 05:0e.0 RAID bus controller: Areca Technology Corp. ARC-1220 8-Port PCI-Express to SATA RAID Controller
which also works fine.
-
Kai Schaetzl -
Karanbir Singh -
Michael Peterson -
tblader