Ubuntu Installation :: Installer Not Seeing Drives Correctly?
Jun 19, 2011
I have 2 identical hard drives that was used as a RAID0, the raid array was removed, and confirmed the removal with the raid utlity. Bios settings are not set to raid. So one hdd has WinXP occupying it, and I want to use the other hdd for ubuntu. For some reason, ubuntu installer still sees it as an array of both hdds. Gpart see them as both array and individual drives. Does anyone know how to correct this? M
View 4 Replies
ADVERTISEMENT
Jan 21, 2010
I am attempting to install on a HP ML110 box. It has 2 SATA drives installed. From the live cd I can do fdisk -l and see both drives, I can see both from GPated but during the actual install it doesn't see any drives in which to install.
View 1 Replies
View Related
May 10, 2010
When I tried to install Ubuntu 9.10 or 10.04 (from CD or USB drive), and selected manual partitioning, the installer would not show all my drives.
However, when booting the life CD/USB, gparted or the Disk Utility did recognize all drives and partitions.
It turned out that one of my drives was marked as RAID partition, although I never used RAID!
Here the symptom:
When you run the installer and select "manual partitioning", the resulting list of drives and partitions is incomplete. In my example it was:
sda
- sda1
sdc
- sdc1
[Code]....
You may have multiple drives with the RAID metadata on it. In that case you need to repeat the above command for all those drives. Just make sure you don't wipe out your existing RAID, if you have one.
Reboot the system and see if it works.
P.S.: Also check your BIOS settings - do you have drives configured as RAID?
View 5 Replies
View Related
May 20, 2015
I'm trying to install jessie on a new computer, but the installer does not see the hard drives. I copied the DVD-1 iso to a usb stick with dd (also tried the netinstall) and it boots, but when I get to partitioning, it only sees the usb drive. If I go to another virtual console and run dmesg or fdisk -l, all drives are seen correctly.
Back up a little - at first I tried the on-board raid, but when the installer couldn't see the drives, I went back into the bios and reset the sata mode to ahci. I've got it set to use bios/legacy OS, or whatever it's called, fast boot is disabled. Even if only one drive is connected, the debian installer does not see it. Then I read up on the fake raid I was trying to use and decided to go with software raid. Can't do that if there's no hard drives listed in the partitioner.
My own installer (refractainstaller) does work, and I've installed jessie with it a couple of times onto one drive, but I really wanted to use raid and lvm, and my installer doesn't do either of those things. No optical drive, but if that's the only way to install, I'll pull the one from my current box and use it for the install. I think I still have a blank CD or DVD lying around.
Hardware:
ASUS H97-PLUS LGA 1150
Intel core i3 (the cheapest one at newegg)
WD Black 1TB drives (2)
GSkill cheap memory, which already passed a memtest.
View 4 Replies
View Related
Jun 3, 2010
We are try to install Fedora 12 or Fedora 13 x86_64 on HP Server Blade ProLiant BL460c G6. And when the installer try to find storage devices - it can not find any hard drivers. We are have message on screen - "Finding storage devices" and the installation process is not continue.... Fedora 10 and Fedora 11 x86_64 are installed very well. The device /dev/cciss/c0d0 is present in system and all it partitions - c0d0p1, c0d0p2 ... Command fdisk -l /dev/cciss/c0d0 has no any output.
lsusb -v output:
0c:00.0 RAID bus controller: Hewlett-Packard Company Smart Array G6 controllers
(rev 01)
Subsystem: Hewlett-Packard Company Smart Array P410i
[code]....
View 1 Replies
View Related
Sep 3, 2010
The Fedora installer won't display my two SATA hard drives. I've tried both the x86_64 live CD and DVD. On the live CD, fdisk -l displayed nothing. However, if I click "Specialized Storage Devices" a devices shows up as "BIOS RAID set (stripe)" with a capacity equal to both my hard drives. I don't even have RAID enabled in BIOS - it is set to AHCI. Other os installers display the hard drive correctly.
Specs:
2x 640GB western digital caviar blacks
ASUS M4A78T-E 790GX motherboard
View 2 Replies
View Related
Feb 16, 2011
I have a Windows XP system, and wanted to install Ubuntu to a 100 GB XT3 partition on the same drive. I was told I could chainload Ubuntu from the NT Loader menu. I booted from a Ubuntu 10.04 CD and ran the installer. It didn't find any hard drives. On a hunch, I tried the 10.04 alternate installer CD. That DID find the hard drive and partitions. I had the installer make /dev/sda7 (the XT3 partition) the root. Installation proceeded smoothly, but then the installer told me it did not see any other OS's on my drive! Why? I directed the installer to place grub on /dev/sda7 instead of the MBR.
Per the instructions I was given, I used DD to copy the first 512 bytes of /dev/sda7 to the Windows primary partition (sda1) as bootloader.lnx. But the resulting file is empty, and it won't boot. I repeated the whole process - formatting, installing FOUR times, and same results. I have no idea where GRUB was installed. It is apparently not in the MBR, because I still have my normal Windows boot. I downloaded the 10.10 alternate installer and got the same exact results. Even switched from XT3 to XT4. After two weeks of this nonsense, I still have yet to see Linux boot.
View 9 Replies
View Related
Jan 12, 2011
I'm trying to setup a dual boot system with Windows Vista 64 (already installed) and Ubuntu 10.10. I added a new drive which is identical to the one Vista is installed on. When I boot into the LiveCD I can see and mount the second drive and edit it in Gparted. However, when I use the installer it will only bring up the drive that already has Vista installed.
View 3 Replies
View Related
Jan 29, 2011
I've recently brought a Western Digital Elements 2TB external hard disk and have been planning to encrypt it for use as a backup drive. However, it seems that these 2TB disks use the new 4K sector sizes and thus need to be handled more carefully than the older 512K ones.
After spending a week looking on Google, I have to admit I'm pretty confused and hope somebody here might be able to verify my conclusions
The drive reports that it's a 512-sector drive which is probably false. Using fdisk -uc, the original partition starts at sector 2048 so I assume that is a valid sector also to start a dm-crypt partition overwriting the previous one?
I've also read that every layer that is added to these drives must support the 4k layer. That means both dm-crypt and the ext3 filesystem I intend to put it on have to do so also.
Looking through the cryptsetup document, it states under the option "--align-payload" the following:
"Align payload at a boundary of value 512-byte sectors. This option is relevant for luksFormat. If your block device lives on a RAID, it is useful to align the filesystem at full stripe boundaries so it can take advantage of the RAIDs geometry. See for instance the sunit and swidth options in the mkfs.xfs manual page. By default, the payload is aligned at an 8 sector (4096 byte) boundary."
The fact that the payload is aligned at 4096 seems to indicate to me that it should be fine using default settings. Does everybody agree with this? Or do I need to take special measures due to the dm-crypt headers?
When I later finish up the dm-crypt layer, then I need to put ext3 on it. I understand adding -b 4096 to the mkfs.ext3 command will resolve that. Is that also correct and will it work well in combination with the dm-crypt layer?
View 4 Replies
View Related
Jan 28, 2010
i have recently setup and installed Ubuntu 9.04 on a virtulal drive usingVMWare 6.04, installed the desktop gui as well, I need to add other drives for data and loggng, which I did in the VMWare side. I can see the 2 drives in ubuntu, but can not access them, I get he unable to mount location when I try. How can resolve this please as I need these to virtual drives to be used as data drives.
View 1 Replies
View Related
Apr 23, 2010
I tried to install 64bit 10.04 Release Candidate but it fails every time. I have been using 64bit 9.10 Karmic on this computer so it's suitable for installation.
I tried to install from USB stick and from CD but same error at the same point! It fails just befere it starts to ask your locations etc...
There must be something totally wrong on installer. Checksums are ok etc...
Errors seen with CD and USB stick installation: Pop up: "Istalltion failed The installer encountered an unrecoverable error. A desktop session will now be run so that you may investigate the problem or try installing again."
On command line I can see following error message on CD:
These errors with USB stick:
View 9 Replies
View Related
Mar 15, 2010
The instaler doesnt find my partitions and the XP that is installed too! For some reasons i cannot delete the whole hdd... if i format the partition, where (i want to install ubuntu) with fat, the pc crashes during the installing process after the tastaturlayout question! if i try some other formats, the installer tells me, that there are no Operating Systems installed and the hdd is unpartitioned!
if i start ubuntu live from the cd, the system finds all partitions, but if i run cfdisk in a terminal, i get a fatal error (cannot open disk space)... My machine is a acer aspire 1694 WLMi (pretty old, but should be no problem), bios is up to date, Windows is XP home edition with SP3.
View 6 Replies
View Related
Jan 18, 2010
Code:
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
[Code].....
After installing I can see the Wine drop-down menu under the Applications, but every time I install something, updates etc. I can see this same error. How can this be fixed?
View 2 Replies
View Related
Apr 30, 2010
I want to support Ubuntu, and I want Ubuntu to succeed, but..Each of the recent upgrades has been more painful than the last one, and it seems like the same old problems are persisting. In Koala it was the sound cards, and though I've just started my struggles with the newest release, it is very obvious that the server-load problems are still there. Hey, you Ubuntu people don't have to invent BitTorrent technology, you just need to make it the transparent default.
It seems to me that most of the problem is that Ubuntu's economic model is broken. They need more testing for new features, and the model needs to be funded so that the features which are added are tested thoroughly. I suggest that they need a system where we the users put our money where our mouths are, so to speak. We should be allowed to subscribe to a budget for proposed new features, where those budgets included sufficient testing.
Actually, I used to be a professional programmer, but I don't want to program these days, even to help Ubuntu, because I know just how difficult and stressful it is to do program well. However, I'd be willing to put some money out to help improve Ubuntu--but I also want to know just what I'm buying into.
There are various ways this could be done, but here is a link about one version of charity funding I was thinking of a while back. As it applies here, the Ubuntu foundation would act as the charity brokerage, and we would donate by buying charity shares in proposed features (including MORE testing).
[URL]
View 5 Replies
View Related
Jul 22, 2010
IBM/Lenovo, ThinkPad X40 (circa 2005), 1.2G of RAM, 17.5G of HD (which reports some damaged sectors) - essentially a progenitor of netbooks in size I've been running 9.10 Karma Koala for about a year now since XP fell victim to a virus and I had lost my disc. I've very much enjoyed the stability of ubuntu, encountering only minor problems which have been easily fixed. I decided to allow my system to update to 10.04 via Update Manager, which it completed and attempted to reboot. My system would only display a black screen from then on out with no indication of loading 10.04. I downloaded and attempted USB reinstall with 10.04 and LTS, always ending with the same result. I'm curious if anyone has had similar problems due to unstable installers or should I assume my system is too old to move past 9.10 (which seems to run without difficulty). Not urgent for my purposes, but I'd like to stay with the supported kernel over time.
View 1 Replies
View Related
May 11, 2011
Basically i had this problem before 11.04 as i tried the online update to 11.04 which kept failing so used a CD to update.Sometimes my internet works great, which only lasts a couple of minutes until its slow, and to the point where it cant even get 1% on a ..... upload.Since i duel boot i have tried the internet on Windows and it seems to work absolutely perfect.
View 4 Replies
View Related
May 3, 2010
I have three physical drives:
Drive 0: Used for paging file in windows and general temp file storage
Drive 1: Media storage
Drive 2: Windows installation
When booting off the Ubuntu 10.04 disc and running the installer, it gets up to the partition step and doesn't find my Windows installation (for the automatic partitioning and such) and lists Drive 0 as the drive it will install to. I really want it to see my Windows install and create a partition on that same drive. Can anyone help me in getting the installer to see the Windows installation?
View 5 Replies
View Related
Jul 2, 2010
I installed Ubuntu 10.04 from a Live CD today. Everything seemed to go fine, I chose to wipe the entire disk. However, it would only startup once. Now, when I turn on my laptop, all I get is a blank screen.
I had a look at my partitions with GParted on the Live CD and noticed that there was a 1 MiB unallocated space just before it. code...
View 7 Replies
View Related
Oct 17, 2010
I installed it via Wubi it did well, but when it told me to restart, I did, after restarting I booted Ubuntu Netbook, then it said "Installation.iso not found. This usually happens when your computer does not shutdown correctly, shutdown without unmounting/removing usb. Please run the chkdsk /r" I already ran that many times nothing happens. I have Windows XP Pro 32bit.
View 1 Replies
View Related
Feb 19, 2010
The Ubuntu installer hangs on step 3 0f 6, the stage in which you select the keyboard layout. The computer it is being installed on is a Toshiba Satellite.disk had previously worked to install on a macbook for dualbooting.
View 6 Replies
View Related
May 28, 2010
change as I salvaged an old old computer and got it back into working order. Windows 7 kills the computer and the media being served is sluggish and slow.
The computer spec are as follows:
Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe Bios 1303
Asus Nvidia En210
[code]....
View 8 Replies
View Related
May 28, 2010
I would like to get Linux working on my new Compaq CQ10-130ca. I was on ubuntu a few days ago, and the was a fast and easy way to create exactly that. Now I come back, the site has changed, and the USB key method too! I have tried to follow the instructions, but failed completely.,. Does anyone have an "easy" way to do this, or at least clearer explanations on how to proceed ?
View 8 Replies
View Related
Jul 11, 2010
i cant install 10.04 on my desktop with the 32bit or 64bit versions of 10.04 desktop.
i get to step 4 and there is nothing listed for partitions or any information and if i click forward, i get that message "no root file system is defined" "please correct this from the partition menu"
View 1 Replies
View Related
Aug 16, 2010
I am attempting to install 32 bit ubuntu 10.04-i386.iso from boot on a Windows XP Pro standalone desktop PC. I have unused hard drive partitions available for the ubuntu installation. At one point the installation dialog box informs me that there is no OS installed on the PC, and the installation program does not correctly indicate the existing Windows hard drive partitions. At that point I abort the installation process.Can anyone advise me how to proceed from this point. I am an old MSoft OS user from way back - I started when DOS was all that there was. I am a complete novice however where Ubuntu is concerned.
View 1 Replies
View Related
Dec 28, 2010
I have Mint 9 installed on a 120GB, WD SATA HDD. Now I want to install Ubuntu 10.10 on this HDD. Downloaded i386 desktop image and created a bootable USB stick with the image. System boots fine but installer do not detect My HDD. It only lists my USB drive. Even Gparted donot detect the drive. Typing sudo fdisk -l also lists only my USB Drive.
View 3 Replies
View Related
Jan 12, 2011
I have a Ubuntu 10.10 live cd for 32-bit. However it does not work with my system--I am guessing it has something to do with having more than 4 gigs of ram.
Anyway I am wondering if there is a way to install ubuntu 10.10 64-bit with Windows 7 64-bit.
View 4 Replies
View Related
Feb 14, 2011
I try to install Ubuntu 10.10 on HP notebook G62 (Intel-i3, 64-bit). It have a 320GB hdd with my laptop which now consists of:
1) SYSTEM volume
2) (C: ) volume with windows 7
3) RECOVERY (D: ) volume
4) HP_TOOLS volume
1 to 4 are originally there. And now I shrink (C: ) by 50GB to get a unallocated space in which I decide to install ubuntu: First I try to shrink by Windows7 tools, but installer did not see unallocated space (but shows list of my volumes). Then I install Acronis disk director and made 50GB unallocated space by Acronis. After this Ubuntu installer does not see any volumes on my HDD Windows7 boots had works normally. I try to restore ALL from image by HP TOOLS but without result - installer doesn't see any volumes. I try boot from CD, remove dmraid and all raid package and try run installer - no result.
View 9 Replies
View Related
Feb 24, 2011
I'm trying to install ubuntu 10.10 onto my desktop via usb. Depending on the tool I use to put the image on the USB drive, I get the following outcomes:
Universal USB Installer
whatever the default in results in no signal after the kernel has done it's work (i.e when the graphics kick in)
"Install Ubuntu to Hard Drive" results in a quick flash of graphical garbage, then an 'incomplete' gnome desktop; the wallpaper is there, a blank menubar with some of the top-right icons (like power etc.) but nothing else. Mouse moves but left, right click and keyboard does nothing. Can't move to the different terminals either.
UNetbootin One option is a blank screen, another results in graphical garbage which appears to be whatever was left in video ram? There was a cool collage effect of my windows logoff screen cursor is fully formed and moves, but that's all.
This isn't limited to Ubuntu 10.10; Fedora 14 has the same problem, but I can boot into basic video and get a desktop. Obviously, I don't want Fedora
I'm assuming my problems are the result of the nouveau video drivers, so my question is this; how do I get ubuntu to use an okay (preferably not basic vesa) graphics driver so I can install? And if I can do this, will enabling nouveau again (a newer version hopefully) cause my problems to continue?
Specs:
Asus P5Q Deluxe Motherboard
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600
Nvidia Geforce GTX 295 (original revision)
View 3 Replies
View Related
Mar 21, 2011
Ubuntu installer does not detect my sata drive during installation.
Hardware:
Asus p4gv-mx
4gb ram
250gb wd sataII drive
ide cdrom
Bios options tried:
Disabling apci 2.0
disabling apci
setting IDE mode to
[Enhanced]
[compatibility] w/both sata only, pata& sata settings
Setting my pata cdrom to slave and plugging it into the slave position of the ide ribbon.
I've tried these combinations with the usb installer, and dvd installer.
I've tried loading the live cd/dvd & usb then running the installer with in.
I've tried the spacebar method, hitting f6 and apci=no, noapci
The live cd has no problems detecting and mounting my hdd, however the installer does not detect it.
View 3 Replies
View Related
Jul 1, 2011
I just did an 11.04 install onto a thinkpad w520 with 16 GB RAM. free - m shows 3.5GB (as does top)
browsing help/forums it seems the 11.04 installer should have detected my RAM and installed the proper kernel.
everything functionally seems great, just missing most of my RAM. I went with 32 bit ubuntu because most people (including canonical on their download page), recommend it. I may move to 64 bit, but would like to solve this for 32 bit first.
View 1 Replies
View Related
