Re: installboot problems with raidframe - amd64

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

yancm%sdf.org@localhost writes:

> upon trying to boot from a raidframe raid0 set, I receive:
>
>   NetBSD/x86 ffsv2 Primary Bootstrap
>   Boot Failed (errno 2): Can't open /boot
>
> 1) /boot does exist on raid0a (as does netbsd)
> 2) I am able to break out of a boot cd boot menu and boot
> using something like > boot raid0a:netbsd

So on the cd, you get /boot loaded from cd, and then it can read various
fs types.  That shows that you have a raid and that it has /netbsd, but
it doesn't show anything about the disk's boot blocks.

You could try "boot raid0:boot".  That might load the /boot off the
disk, and verify that it's ok, separately from bootxx's ability to find
it.

Note that errno 2 is ENOENT.

The ffsv2/ffsv1 issue pointed out by mlelstv is critical.  The bootxx
code is so small that it can only handle one format.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the "primary" bootstrap
(bootxx_ffsvN) is trying to look at the root partition (what was passed
to it by the bios) and then noticing that it is type raid, skipping the
raid offset and then I think finding the first partition, but perhaps
tthe fs that starts at 0.   Your raid partitioning looks normal.


You didn't explain if you have an fdisk partition table and MBR, or if
you are using gpt, or ?

> The guide used a 63 offset, but one of the wikis recommended 2048...
> Q1 is this offset causing my issues?

I think it's very unlikely this is trouble.  63 is a floppy track, and
the problem with that is that it's not a multiple of 8, so with 4K
physical sectors you get misalignment.  I tend to use 64, but 2048 is 1
MB which is a rounder number.

> I've tried installboot with the following options (neither worked):
> installboot -t raid -v -o timeout=8 /dev/rwd1a /usr/mdec/bootxx_ffsv2
> and
> installboot -v -o timeout=8 /dev/rwd1a /usr/mdec/bootxx_ffsv2
> And yes, I did this for both rwd1a and rwd0a...
> Q2: DO I need to add an offset to installboot?

What kind of offset?  I don't think this makes sense.  As i understand
it, the RAID header (64 bytes) leaves room for the
mbr/disklabel/primary-boot.