XE refuses to boot from new HDD (Solved)

[Raziel]

There was i thinking SFS/2 had since long suport for slb booting, but how wrong i was :-/
(Strange that it refused to boot with FFS but maybe i had wrong UBoot settings back when i tried?)

As I said, I have checked, I do have sfs/02 on the booting partition and I do boot from it with no problem

Hmm..could you please tell me the version and size of your slb_v2.
I used (for obvious reasons) the version that came from the original AmigaOS4.1 install CD and i *believe* that there might have been an update to the slb in the meantime which added SFS/02 boot support...which could have fooled me into believing SFS/02 will work from day one...ah well, trapped into bad memory again

[nbache]

Right, I checked this out, and my memory was wrong. SFS\2 support did get added to slb.

The version on the original 4.1 install CD is 1.16 from 21-jan-2006. That one doesn't boot from SFS\2. The one on the 4.1 Update 1 iso does, it is version 1.19 from 26-nov-2008.

So you are right, Raziel, you must be using the older one.

Best regards,

Niels

[Raziel]

Right, I checked this out, and my memory was wrong. SFS\2 support did get added to slb.

The version on the original 4.1 install CD is 1.16 from 21-jan-2006. That one doesn't boot from SFS\2. The one on the 4.1 Update 1 iso does, it is version 1.19 from 26-nov-2008.

So you are right, Raziel, you must be using the older one.

Best regards,

Niels

Yup, 1.16 is the one i had installed.

Thanks for the clarification.

Not that it is part of the subject but are there still plans (possibility?) to add JXFS (or "foreign" FS like FAT32) to the slb boot?
Maye that is part of the mentioned future FS overhaul...in this case a short note would b sufficient

Thank you very much to all for helping me out

[daveyw]

Just checked the SLB on my own boot drive, and I see that it's the older version, 1.16. Apart from the ability to boot from SFS/02, is there any advantage to changing the SLB? Given the hassle of re-prepped my HD, is it worth upgrading?

I also have a second drive that I don't boot from that I didn't install any SLB on. Is that likely to be a problem?

[nbache]

Just checked the SLB on my own boot drive, and I see that it's the older version, 1.16. Apart from the ability to boot from SFS/02, is there any advantage to changing the SLB? Given the hassle of re-prepped my HD, is it worth upgrading?

You don't need any re-prepping just to install/update the SLB. All you need to do is copy the new SLB into L:, then go to the RDB tab (first tab) in Media Toolbox and install it with the Install button in the lower part, selecting the file you just copied to L:. Then hit OK and save to disk, exit media Toolbox and reboot. The SLB is just a piece of code (Second Level Bootloader) which is read from the RDB and executed during startup. It doesn't change anything about your partitions or data to update it.

I also have a second drive that I don't boot from that I didn't install any SLB on. Is that likely to be a problem?

No. The SLB is only needed on disks with bootable partitions. But it won't hurt to install it anyway, that way you'd be ready if some day you want to make an alternative boot volume on that disk.

Best regards,

Niels

[voxel]

strange. I have slb v2 version 1.9 from 4.1u1 install CD installed on the 1TB of my µAone and I can't boot from it if the partition if formated in FFS or SFS2... so default to SFS0.

another strange effect, it refuse to show me the three bootable partitions that are on this disk (nor the one on the ide disk), only the one with highest boot priority is shown or boot

I've tryied to set all boot parts to the same boot priority but that changed nothing

what can I have forgotten to do in uboot ?