keith at keithg4jvx.force9.co.uk
Wed Oct 8 07:51:59 UTC 2008
Mark Haney wrote:
> Keith Powell wrote:
>> Karl, Mark.
>> I have solved the problem.
>> Recapping, the XP drive is plugged and jumpered as the master and the
>> Ubuntu the slave.
>> If I have the master drive plugged in when installing Ubuntu, the
>> partitioner correctly recognises the slave as 'sdb'. However, if I have
>> the master unplugged, it calls the slave 'sda'. In my 'un-expert'
>> opinion, this is in conflict with what it should be.
> Why should it be in conflict? In the mind of the kernel, the first drive
> is always assigned /dev/sda whether it was originally that or not. (Or,
> back in the olden days /dev/hda).
> It will only be recognized as such if the master is connected. I know
> this sounds a bit counter-intuitive, but keep in mind the M/S jumper
> only affects drive designations if there is more than one drive. If
> there is only one, the 'slave' designation doesn't apply. Does that
> make sense?
> Remember, the kernel will designate drives in the order they are seen.
> With just one drive, it's the first (and only). With 2 drives, it falls
> back to asking which is Master, and tagging it /dev/sda.
>> So, I have installed Ubuntu with the master plugged in and it now works.
>> I expect, but am guessing here, that I could alternatively have
>> installed Ubuntu with the other drive unplugged and edited grub/menu.lst
>> to change sda to sdb.
> Yeah that would probably have worked. I've done that in the past with no
> trouble. But that's been ages ago.
>> There's just one thing which has happened, which I didn't want. Ubuntu
>> appears to have installed its grub onto the XP drive MBR. I want to find
>> out how to reinstall the XP MBR and change the Ubuntu one to the sdb drive.
> You know, I'd recommend leaving it as is. It's much easier to make grub
> see Windows than it is for XP to see grub. (Or to pass the boot
> sequence on to grub is maybe a better phrasing).
> Either way, whichever boot manager you load first will HAVE to know
> about both operating systems. Otherwise the OTHER OS will never be
> 'bootable' from there.
> Make sense?
Thank you, Mark, for the explanation.
Yes, it does make sense. I had got the wrong idea, so you have cleared
I'll leave the booting as it is.
More information about the ubuntu-users