Mageia forum

I've done a little testing on the time to boot to a
working KDE desktop ( BONG! ) and I've found that
GRUB vs GRUB2 essentially take about the same time.
On my test platform that will be about 1min14sec.
There was some conjecture, even from myself, that
GRUB2 was faster. I don't find it to be that way.

In that case I don't think GRUB 2 should even be considered as the default bootloader until at least MGA5!

digigold wrote:In that case I don't think GRUB 2 should even be considered as the default bootloader until at least MGA5!

Ya, it's a little rough right now in M3B1.

wilcal wrote:

digigold wrote:In that case I don't think GRUB 2 should even be considered as the default bootloader until at least MGA5!

Ya, it's a little rough right now in M3B1.

If you want your new kernels to show up in your grub config, urpme grub2.
Right now that is broken wit the default install, grubs menu.lst does not get updated.
(bug is being worked)

Short term fix is to uninstall one or the other.

Not a grub2 fan, so i opted for grub, as it can be installed on a partition and can be recovered/configured by humans.

Not a grub2 fan, so i opted for grub, as it can be installed on a partition and can be recovered/configured by humans.

I am a grub2 fan, I installed it in a partition and I recover/reconfigure it myself. No OS can touch or nuke my grub2 partition and it boots everything directly (windows, ISO files, btrfs, any usb....)
But, to each his own.

[edit] I also had a grub-legacy separate partition (before grub2 was introduced) for the same reasons, but it is a real PITA to create it, [eltorito, char-set, genisoimage....] ; with grub 2, a single command.
ps : and we are not just talking about...root (hdx,y) set (hdx,y) , right ?

Cheers.

gohlip wrote:I am a grub2 fan,...

Gohlip - What would you say is the biggest advantage of GRUB2 over GRUB? Why is it your preference? I know many pros and cons of both but always like to here from actual admins.

Thanks,

digigold wrote:What would you say is the biggest advantage of GRUB2 over GRUB? Why is it your preference? I know many pros and cons of both but always like to here from actual admins.
Thanks,

Hi, digigold, first, I'll state I do not normally get into a discussion about "preferences", say like brower prefences, firefox, chromium, opera,... kde/gnome.....After all, linux is about choices, and I do see why some people have distro preferences too, and Mageia gives me an impression about it, as quite opposed to the impression Arch Linux gives me (I have Chakra). Mageia (M2 that is) still uses firefox10 and other 'stable' [s](read archaic)[/s] features (like grub-legacy) and part of the impression Mageia gives me is that its users want 'solid' (read 'do not want change') tested (read 'won't fail') features. That is to me, nothing wrong, and not to sneer at. And after all, we can always install the latest firefox (firefox20) - or backtrack to older versions - in any distro if the user has sufficient proficiency. But I digress....so, what we can talk and argue (in the true nice sense of the word) is about features and directions. For the most authoritative commentary (it keeps/maintains both official grub-legacy and grub2 docs and changes), I hope this link would suffice..
http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/manual ... RUB-Legacy

Cheers!

btw, I'm not an admin, just a 'normal' linux user, not even a 'techie'.

Thanks for your reply. I actually run Cauldron and have Aurora (FF 19a2). I would say in general that I prefer new alphas and betas at home (not at work obviously), however GRUB 2 is an exemption to that. I just don't like it as is. (Personal preference)

Since most desktop distros (Ubuntu, Fedora, etc) as well as ROSA 2012 and Mandriva Cooker now use GRUB 2 so it's probably just a matter of time before Mageia files suit. I just hope they keep GRUB Legacy as an option at installation.

What I was asking with my previous post is what about GRUB 2 do you like better. e.g. Scripting Ability, Boot Partition on LVM, etc.

What I was asking with my previous post is what about GRUB 2 do you like better. e.g. Scripting Ability, Boot Partition on LVM, etc.

My first liking about grub2 (about 6 years ago) was that I do not encounter blank boots when I point it to another drive or external (I have several OS's and drives then). Otherwise I'll have to keep changing to (hd0,x), (hd1,x) or (hd3,x) or (back again!) to get it correct in grub-legacy (grub 2 boots up always).
Another advantage was that grub2 allows booting in ext4, LVM, Raid and boot sectors further away from (er, forgot, 1024 cylinder?); but since then many distro's "modify" their grub to do that (or hard drive manufacturers put in features). Note grub-legacy was not maintained for at least 6 years now.
There are other issues too like sata and ide drives, later (still unresolved) ones like btrfs, and of course it will still not boot UEFI (some distro claim their grub-legacy can, but I doubt so because there were no trully UEFI then, just a 'fake' UEFI-like GUI screen).
Another thing I really liked was that I had a 'separate' boot/grub partition in grub-legacy and each time there was a kernel change, I had to go through loops to modify it (not to mention creating it was hard enough). In grub2, a single line command for both creating it; modifying it /adding menus? - kwrite/kate for the grub.cfg.

Yes, grub-legacy appears simple, just modifying menu.lst is all it takes, switching boot menus just by root (hdx,y) & set (hdx,y) but the main thing about boot loaders is that it must first of all, always boot correctly and don't go haywire when a new OS or new kernel is added, and by that measurement, grub2 is far superior.

Of course, by saying all these above (some of my opinions missing), it must be pointed out that grub-legacy had performed admirably, considering the new technical innovations (ide,sata,lvm,raid, ext4...) thrown at it, despite its age and non-maintenence. It deserve a nice retirement home with full pensions and benefits (with a medal to boot, pun intended).

However with a new kid (UEFI) taking over BIOS, we all must make sure it does not become spoilt brat before it even hits puberty, with a well-intended secure boot becoming a monopolized restricted boot.

Cheers!

I have yet to susessfully install grub2 to a partition.
100% failure rate. Have tried off and on for YEARS.
Not supported or recommended by the developers or documentation, or any machine I have tried it on (many).

//begin rant
grub2 is dead already, but folks just haven't gotten the message.
It can ONLY be loaded to MBR per it's own documentation, so it "owns" the disc.
That is unlikely to play well with SecureBoot.

using grub(legacy) each test OS install can manage its own loader on its own partition, and any reasonable bootloader can be used to launch it., even Windows. (with minor effort)

In 2-3 years (possibly less), anything that cannot be loaded by the EFI loader (AKA installable to partition) is effectively obsolete//useless.

It is already the case on a lot of current hardware.
(grub2 can be used, but ONLY from the MBR+it's own partition, as it is an OS unto itself)

Unless they rewrite grub2 from scratch to allow reliable installation to partitions, it is a ~complete waste of time, as you will already have EFI as your OS chooser, and a second layer of redundant bloated menu generating crud like grub2 is useless.

//end rant

There are some excellent GPL disc based EFI emulators/loaders that can work with EFI or BIOS setups that (IMHO) would be a far better use of effort. Unfortunately their support for booting anything but OSX or win7/8 is lacking ATM, but that's probably relatively easy to cure.

That way any Linux distro that has EFI support (most even now) will only have to manage booting itself.

FWIW, for the EFI loader, here's a link: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Gummiboot

I have yet to susessfully install grub2 to a partition.

Use '' --force'' to allow use of embedded block lists.

That is unlikely to play well with SecureBoot.

All Linux distro's as yet, whichever bootloaders, can ''play'' with secure boot.
Need a ''shim'' or disable secure boot to do that.
Pray tell, other than Grub2, are there any bootloader that ''play'' with uefi gpt? Secure boot or otherwise?

It won't even try without --force...
--force fails, it has left a completely unbootable system, requiring manual recovery in absolutely every case.

I don't understand why the developers even allow it.

The linix kernel itself has code supporting direct booting from EFI, but you lose the ability to pick multiple kernels.
ELILO or the modified grub(legacy) that ships with most distros works.
Even LILO (still under active development) or syslinux works for the "local" Linux boot loader.

It doesn't all "just work" yet, but the train is coming.
ELILO or the modified grub(legacy) that ships with most distros works.


Grub2 (or even grub) works BETTER with it's own partition for management, something similar to what EFI does.
Ideal interim setup would be a mini-linux distro JUST to manage GRUB/2 on it's own partition.

Granted, Mageia's grub2 is currently not well developed yet, but I suppose we cannot complain when releases are labelled 'beta'.[os-prober not working (cannot detect), upgate-grub, mkconfig, sys-link point to wrong kernel, install only to sda, etc.. (bug report? - the dev's alreadr knew all these)]

In my case, I have a separate partition which boots all OS's. So if I cannot install well Mageia's grub or install it to MBR, I revert to my 'personal' grub by ''install-grub --boot-directory=/path-to-my-grub/boot /dev/sdax ''

To get an idea how I did my separate grub (so that you can have your objective), it comes in 3 parts, but note some commands are obsolete/replaced/changed (like --set becomes --set=root, --root-directory becomes --boot-directory=/xxx/boot, etc). But still far easier than doing it on grub-legacy.

(Googled it out)
http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-List ... 01862.html
http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-List ... 01864.html
http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-List ... 01868.html

Cheers.

Ps: I don't think elilo or lilo will fit the bill, but that's my personal opinion. As things stand (no change or new method, either by linux foundation or Microsoft softening its osition/approving Linux kernels as certified), I'd rather boot with grub2,secure boot disabled, if Microsoft won't boot, so be it.

I (personally) don't see why we need Microsoft at all and I (personally) think there will be changes coming. I can imagine a method, as yet untried, where this issue can be circumvented (using a separate grub partition as outlined above) if things remain. But...really, I couldn't care less about using Microsoft, so why bother.

pps. --force works in non-Mageia Linux grub2 bootloaders

ppps you can, if you want your system all grub-legacy, use mageia,s default grub legacy, uninstall grub2 (if installed), and use your own preferred grub to MBR (instead of Mageia's installed-to-mbr) by ""root (hd0,x), set (hd0,x)''. So you can continue enjoying your choice of poison.

As of MGA3B2 uninstalling grub2 before running first updates is the only way to currently have a system that (automatically) updates boot menus when installing new kernels AFAIK.

I even tried using grub2, uninstalling grub (legacy) and was left with an unbootable system 3 out of 3 tries before swearing it off for good.
That doesn't even include attempts of installing (with -force) to partitions, which has not worked for me. Ever.

When ANY distro starts setting up a grub2 partition first by default, I'll look at that configuration.
(I'm attempting to test the installer/distro as the average Janet or Joe would, not just add it to a test system with a wizards full custom boot configuration that could boot rocks)

I used to run that way with grub, at least sorta, with an actual /boot partition with the usual recovery utilities if all else failed.
I eventually gave up running Debian for Mandrake tho, as it ~just worked
(save for annoying little issues, almost the distros personality it seems)

The worst issues are largely not with the beta, the issues are with grub2, as every version on every distro has the same issues to some extent. The MGA integration issues are relatively minor.

The main issues are probably unsolveable short of forking grub2 from GNU, as upstream has stated the worst of them are "features" not bugs, and likely not worth solving, as there are several far simpler, arguably better alternatives.

I don't mind beta testing at all, but I try not to stick the same fork in the same eye repeatedly.

Having said that, I'm done beating a dead horse AND wasting my time.
Until I see reports how great grub2 is working for everyone installing to partitions, it gets uninstalled prior to disc installation.

Yeah, right, I am also done beating a real dead horse, grub-legacy; and taking a leaf from you, I will also not waste any of my time on it. There are lots of past dead horses in Linux, lilo, initd , etc and more dead horses coming, dkms, systemd, etc

Perhaps we should stick to Cobol, fortran, dl1, lotus notes.....

And.....you're welcome. Don't mention it.

The grub vs. grub2 conflict bug seems to have been resolved in a sane and working fashion...
(just did a clean install to verify)

Quick update on boot speed;

I replaced a .~4 tear old WD blue 5400 RPM laptop drive with a Seagate XT 750 GB hybrid. SSD/7200 RPM 2.5" drive.
(it was that or a 128GB SSD, ~same price with both on sale---went large)

Clean boot of current Cauldron (after all updates) was ~45-50 seconds on the old drive.
(+5 iif pulseaudio enabled, +15 if kscreen was chosen rather than the default kded-sumthing during initial updates, bug reported) times measured from hitting enter on selection in grub boot menu.

The new drive took 20 seconds on the first boot, and is pushing 15 seconds after a few reboots, as it caches frequently used blocks to its 8GB of SLC flash.(keeps track by itself--- no OS support needed)

The grub menu comes up almost instantly now.

Win8 is pushing 10 seconds to ~usable desktop with fingerprint reader swipe login, although it continues to slowly load junk in the bkgd for ~15 more seconds.
Cauldron times were measured to idle HDD, per gkrellm.

Using grub (but grub2 is still installed, works now) and disabled pulseaudio, although pulse doesn't seem to be hurting bootimes measurably like with the old slow drive, probably some I/O contention going on..
This is on a 4 year old Lenovo X200 tablet.

Strangely, restoring from Hibernate takes 3-4 seconds longer than cold boot w/4G RAM, expect it to get worse w/8GB.
(actually worse than that as the network is already up when cold booting finishes on the KDE desktop+ idle hdd, resume can take another 5 seconds or so to bring up wireless network)