Not a Vista ubuntu won't boot

#1
Hi All,

I originally had XP professional installed and then installed Ubuntu and later installed Win 7. After installing Win 7, Ubuntu was no longer an option (it's now using the Win 7 boot menu).

So I got EBCD and attempted to fix the problem.

On my first drive (C)I have the following:

24mb unallocated
83gb Win XP (NTFS)
18gb win files (NTFS)
282mb swap
9.5gb Ubuntu (ext3)

First I tried using the linux boot options but it didn't work.

I'm now trying to use neogrub and this is the neogrub file:

# NeoSmart NeoGrub Bootloader Configuration File
#
# This is the NeoGrub configuration file, and should be located at C:\NST\menu.lst
# Please see the EasyBCD Documentation for information on how to create/modify entries:
# EasyBCD Documentation Home - NeoSmart Technologies Wiki

#This is our first entry
title Ubuntu
find --set-root /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.24-19-generic
root (hd0,3)
#Next Line: Translate (hd0,3) to Linux notation and set that as the root partition
kernel /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.24-19-generic root=/dev/sda4
initrd /boot/initrd.img-2.6.24-19-generic
#End Ubuntu entry

This gets me to the grub Ubuntu menu selection but when I select it, I then get:
error 19 cannot mount selected partition. I researched this error and it says grub sees this as an ext3 partition and it doesn't recognize that type of file system.

I'm sure it's something to do with my identification of what it is I want to mount/boot but cannot figure it out.

This is my menu.lst from my Ubuntu partition BEFORE I added a partition for Win 7:

default 0
timeout 10
title Ubuntu 8.04.1,
kernel 2.6.24-19-generic
root (hd0,2)
kernel /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.24-19-generic root=UUID=31ffce31-c5fb-4540-9082-b54285698f54 ro quiet splash
initrd /boot/initrd.img-2.6.24-19-generic


title Ubuntu 8.04.1,
kernel 2.6.24-19-generic (recovery mode)
root (hd0,2)
kernel /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.24-19-generic root=UUID=31ffce31-c5fb-4540-9082-b54285698f54 ro single
initrd /boot/initrd.img-2.6.24-19-generic
(minus a lot of comments at the end of the Ubuntu menu.lst)

Any help in solving this problem would be greatly appreciated.

Harry
 

JustinW

Super Moderator
Staff member
#2
Hi Harry, welcome to NST

Your NeoGrub menu.lst should work just fine without the root line. While you can use that, you shouldn't use it in combination with find --set-root as its job is to automatically locate the correct disk/partition, so remove that and see if you get different results first.

If thats not working, we'll go ahead and move on than to trying to get it to work with the menu.lst on your Ubuntu partition. Because you've changed the disc layout by making room for Win 7, you may need to readjust the y in your "root (hdx,y)" lines until you find the correct place.
 
#3
Hi Harry, welcome to NST

Your NeoGrub menu.lst should work just fine without the root line. While you can use that, you shouldn't use it in combination with find --set-root as its job is to automatically locate the correct disk/partition, so remove that and see if you get different results first.

If thats not working, we'll go ahead and move on than to trying to get it to work with the menu.lst on your Ubuntu partition. Because you've changed the disc layout by making room for Win 7, you may need to readjust the y in your "root (hdx,y)" lines until you find the correct place.
Justin,
When you're right, you're right!
First I removed the root line like you suggested and that allowed blackbox to run its script which went to the end, timed out, and then told me that vmlinuz was not where I said it would be.

Then I changed sda4 to sda3 and it booted correctly. Just like that my problems were solved.

Now, why I had to tell it that Ubuntu was on partition 3 of drive 0 to make it work is a real puzzle as Ubuntu is actually on partition 4 or drive 0, unless swap is not considered a partition. Who knows.

Anyway, thanks a lot for your help and I'm now able to run Ubuntu again.

Harry
 
Last edited:
#4
Now, why I had to tell it that Ubuntu was on partition 3 of drive 0 to make it work is a real puzzle as Ubuntu is actually on partition 4 or drive 0, unless swap is not considered a partition. Who knows.
If you feel like posting the output of a few commands, then we can get to the bottom of this puzzle. :wink:

If you're in Ubuntu right now, get to the Terminal, by going to the Applications menu, and selecting "Accessories" and then "Terminal".
Now run:

Code:
sudo fdisk -l
and post its output. The last letter is a lowercase L.

If you're in Windows, open up EasyBCD, go to the Useful Utilities section, and open up the Power Console. Now type (and press Enter after each command):

Code:
MbrFix /drive 0 listpartitions
bootpart
Once you post that, we can see right away where your Ubuntu partition is, and it will no longer be a mystery. :wink: Also, keep in mind that the "(hdx,y)" kind of notation counts the drives and partitions starting at 0, not 1, while the "sdxy" notation on the other hand uses letters (i.e. 'a' being the *first* disk, 'b' being the second and so forth) for drives, and numbers (starting the count this time at 1 as normal) for the partitions, so that probably explains the partition number mixup. :smile:

Cheers,

Jake
 

JustinW

Super Moderator
Staff member
#5
The swap partition is basically Ubuntu's paging file. Because the boot files and OS cannot be installed there, sda3 (your Ubuntu partition) is the correct place. Glad to help and enjoy Ubuntu :smile:
 
#6
If you feel like posting the output of a few commands, then we can get to the bottom of this puzzle. :wink:

Cheers,

Jake
Thanks for the response Jake. It appears Ubuntu/Linux numbers the partitions differently than windoze (DUH!)

Anyway, in my first post I had them in the order shown by xp and you can see that the xp ordering of them seems to be as they appear on the disk while ubuntu arranges them by some other standard.

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 * 4 10896 87497991 7 HPFS/NTFS
/dev/sda2 13319 13354 289170 82 Linux swap / Solaris
/dev/sda3 13355 14593 9952267+ 83 Linux
/dev/sda4 10897 13318 19454715 f W95 Ext'd (LBA)
/dev/sda5 10897 13318 19454683+ 7 HPFS/NTFS

So, if I had been running linux, I would have been able to see what to put in the boot record but since I wasn't running linux, I couldn't. But it is working now and that's the important thing.

Thanks for everyones help.

UBUNTU ROCKS

Harry
 

JustinW

Super Moderator
Staff member
#7
Yeah, that can happen sometimes as well, quite frustrating indeed. I don't see everyone getting together to make it the same anytime soon regardless of OS unforunately thanks to "use my platform only" companies like MS and Apple.
 
#8
So, if I had been running linux, I would have been able to see what to put in the boot record but since I wasn't running linux, I couldn't. But it is working now and that's the important thing.
For future reference, you can always boot from the LiveCD, and choose to "Try Ubuntu with no change to my computer". :wink: This will take you into a Live session where you can run that command, and check your partition numbers.

I actually think Linux is far more reliable with numbering the drives and partitions in regard to the BIOS and MBR partition table. :wink: The Windows Disk Management (as we have seen from all the recent posts from users who's Disk Management gave them messed-up info) is not to be trusted, as there are all sorts of things that affect the drive and partition numbers displayed there (such as a SATA/IDE mix where the IDE is shown first, regardless of its actual position in the BIOS boot order). We even had a user here who's Disk Management showed a primary partition *within* an extended ! How crazy is that? :?? Most of these bugs seem to only happen within Vista, but there is no guarantee though that effects somewhat similiar can not be experienced also in XP, since both OSes are after all made by the same company...>.<

Cheers,

Jake
 

Terry60

Knows where his towel is.
Staff member
#9
I refer you to the first line in green in point 7 of the sticky Mo.
 
#10
For future reference, you can always boot from the LiveCD, and choose to "Try Ubuntu with no change to my computer". :wink: This will take you into a Live session where you can run that command, and check your partition numbers.

Cheers,

Jake
Thanks Jake,

That's actually how I found out what sda to use. I booted my live cd and ran the partition program and it showed what was what under Ubuntu. Before I was talking about how in xp they had partition 1 as being 0-100 for example and 2 being 101-200, 3 being 201-300 and so on, where ubuntu might have part 1 as 0-100 and part 2 as 301-400 and part 3 as 101-200 so it's just a matter of learning where everything is. Originally I just "assumed" (remember that word?) that I knew what the order was.

And also as Terry pointed out the sticky does say things could be different. Ubuntu handles the extended partition numbering different (as the sticky also points out) and xp ignores the difference between the types of partitions.

thanks again to all
Harry
 
#11
Yeah, the count for logical partitions with the "(hdx,y)" type of notation begins at 4, regardless of how many primary partitions there. And the "sdxy" syntax counts the logical partitions starting at 5. So yes, you are correct with the extended/logical partition changing things for Linux. :wink:

I still prefer to trust Linux more than I trust Windows for seeing the drives and partitions as they are seen by the BIOS and MBR partition table respectively though. :smile:
 

Terry60

Knows where his towel is.
Staff member
#12
I guess it's a reflection on the nature of the user population.
Linux is a geek community, and a formulaic numbering system, reflecting the primary/logical status as well as the relative position is the kind of thing that geeks like us like.
Windows is the ultimate expression of the "computing for dummies" philosopy which the whole shift into GUIland from DOS was about. If you've got 2 partitions, call them 1 and 2 so as not to confuse the user into panic at the fact that they appear to have come up as 0 and 4 !

Mark my words. In the year or so I was thinking about trying Linux, the distros have become so much more Windows-like, that I'm sure it won't be long before the GUI bits start calling the partitions 1 and 2 too.
 
Last edited:
#13
I guess it's a reflection on the nature of the user population.

Mark my words. In the year or so I was thinking about trying Linux, the distros have become so much more Windows-like.
Wait!
GUI front end on a llinux like operating system. Didn't someone already do this? :smile:

Harry