Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 3431
Non-existent ide device erroneously "detected" on slave port of first ide
Last modified: 2008-05-01 11:37:50 EDT
When booting with the Red Hat 6.0 floppy, the first
and second IDE controller (ide0 and ide1) are properly
detected and both my IDE disks (/dev/hda with Win98,
/dev/hdc with Linux), too, as well as the slave Atapi
CDROM on the second IDE (/dev/hdd).
However, it also erroneously "detects" a "non-IDE"
device on /dev/hdb (slave on first IDE): I have no
device physically or logically (BIOS) attached on the
slave port of the first IDE. The errors are (Alt-F2):
"<4>hdb: non-IDE drive, CHS=621/128/63"
"<3>hdb: INVALID GEOMETRY: 128 PHYSICAL HEADS?"
And when in disk druid/fdisk:
"An error occured reading the partition table for the
block device /tmp/hdb. The error was: Device not
It does not seem to influence the installation process
and operations after installation, although the "<3>"
error keeps popping up after installation and after
baking a new kernel.
What brand of motherboard is this that is having these problems.
Also, verify that you have the slace device on the ide0 chain set to
"none" in the BIOS.
Motherboard: Intel "Advanced/ZP Baby-AT Board" (says on the cover)
with a 82371FB PCI ISA/IDE Accelerator (PIIX) and 83437FX Pentium
PCI bridge (Triton). Ordinary Pentium @ 75 MHz, 32 Mb edo ram.
Yes, when I enter the setup of the BIOS:
Primary IDE Master: ST5180A
Primary IDE Slave : Not Installed
Secondary IDE Master: QUANTUM FIREBALL_T
Secondary IDE Slave : GCD-R540C
And when ordinarily booting, only the these three devices are
listed on the screen.
We do not have that particular board in the lab and also have not
noticed this type of behavior with other boards. Just curious, does
this still occur if you completely clear the CMOS and choose BIOS
defaults without performance enhancements?
Thanks for your answer, but i'm sorry, i'm somewhat reluctant to
clear the CMOS etc. As said, the "error" seems harmless; and i still
don't understand why during BIOS bootup the "ghost drive" does not
show up, and Windows 98 also does not mention or complain about it.
I think it has to do with, and i agree it is not common, the fact
that the slave is on the second ide ctrl and the first does not have
a slave. I reported this error(?) cuz i thought it might signify
something. I wouldn't mind if this bug is closed.
If you can try typing at the LILO boot: prompt
and see if kernel still reports the drive being detected. If it helps
then add to your /etc/lilo.conf file in the linux section
and rerun /sbin/lilo before rebooting.