CentOS 5 x86_64 and i386 installs conflict?

Support for the other architectures (X86_64, IA-64, and PowerPC)
Post Reply
fbausch
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007/08/22 15:02:42

CentOS 5 x86_64 and i386 installs conflict?

Post by fbausch » 2011/03/16 19:02:39

i am attempting to install CentOS 5.5 i386 and x86_64 to two separate partitions on one machine, with a shared boot partition.

It appears that both installations use the same filenames for files in /boot, but it appears that those files are not interchangeable for both versions of the OS - if you install the x86_64, it will stomp on the i386 boot files, and vice versa.

I think I can manage this by manually renaming the files, but the problem will in all likelihood recur with every kernel update. My fedora x86_64 installs have always named files specially, so as not to conflict.

Is this the desired behavior?

pschaff
Retired Moderator
Posts: 18276
Joined: 2006/12/13 20:15:34
Location: Tidewater, Virginia, North America
Contact:

CentOS 5 x86_64 and i386 installs conflict?

Post by pschaff » 2011/03/16 19:17:05

Desired behavior or not, that is the way it is.

You will save yourself a lot of headaches and manual intervention with every kernel update by giving each install its own /boot. Disk space is a lot less valuable than your time.

What is it you are trying to achieve by the shared /boot? I'd just choose one installation to be the "master", write the "slave" GRUB to its /boot, and chainload the "slave" GRUB from the "master" /boot/grub/grub.conf. Alternatively, depending on your requirements, why not just install x86_64 and if you want to play with "pure" i386 use a virtual machine, avoiding the evils of dual-boot altogether?

fbausch
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007/08/22 15:02:42

Re: CentOS 5 x86_64 and i386 installs conflict?

Post by fbausch » 2011/03/16 20:14:22

Phil-

Thanks for the suggestions.

Maintaining a virtual machine infrastructure is way more of a hassle than renaming files.
Maintaining a mess of chainloads to all the various lvms is less of a mess, but still is more trouble than just fixing the x86_64 filenames after a kernel update.
But maybe, just for CentOS 5 x86_64, i'll do it. Because it's "special".

I was really just surprised to find this after installing many many fedora i386 and x86_64 OS and never running into such a conflict.

Thanks again -

f.

pschaff
Retired Moderator
Posts: 18276
Joined: 2006/12/13 20:15:34
Location: Tidewater, Virginia, North America
Contact:

Re: CentOS 5 x86_64 and i386 installs conflict?

Post by pschaff » 2011/03/16 20:39:45

[quote]
fbausch wrote:
Phil-

Thanks for the suggestions.[/quote]
You are welcome.

[quote]
Maintaining a virtual machine infrastructure is way more of a hassle than renaming files.[/quote]
We may just have to agree to disagree on that point. :-) I could not do business without VMs and find dual/multi-boot to be rather painful, although I do still use it on occasion.

[quote]
Maintaining a mess of chainloads to all the various lvms is less of a mess, but still is more trouble than just fixing the x86_64 filenames after a kernel update.[/quote]
Not sure what you mean by "lvms" - may be mixing apples and oranges here. VMs do not need chainload, and LVM is a filesystem not supported bu GRUB.

Again, you are entitled to your opinion, but for me chainload makes things pretty much transparent across kernel updates on either/any of the multi-boot instances on a system and is by far a more elegant solution than having to fix things for each kernel update.

[quote]
But maybe, just for CentOS 5 x86_64, i'll do it. Because it's "special".[/quote]
But of course! :-)

[quote]
I was really just surprised to find this after installing many many fedora i386 and x86_64 OS and never running into such a conflict.[/quote]
Have not messed much with Fedora since about FC7 (except for the occasional test install inside a VM - usually [url=http://www.virtualbox.org/]VirtualBox[/url]) so can't say. Perhaps CentOS-6 will behave more to your liking.

Post Reply

Return to “CentOS 5 - X86_64,s390(x) and PowerPC Support”