similar to: Chainloading from one PXELINUX to another (with some iPXE in the mix)?

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 9000 matches similar to: "Chainloading from one PXELINUX to another (with some iPXE in the mix)?"

2013 Dec 04
2
Boot iPXE from syslinux/isolinux
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa at zytor.com> on Tue, 2013/12/03 20:26: > On 10/24/2013 01:09 AM, Christian Hesse wrote: > >>> > >>> version 6.02-pre5 works, 6.02-pre6 does not. > >> > >> Struggled with git bisect, but finally succeeded: > >> > >> 8f470e7bfe75f6401f6c5432988c620b863ad274 is the first bad commit > >>
2013 Oct 24
5
Boot iPXE from syslinux/isolinux
Christian Hesse <list at eworm.de> on Tue, 2013/10/22 13:14: > Christian Hesse <list at eworm.de> on Tue, 2013/10/22 12:56: > > Gene Cumm <gene.cumm at gmail.com> on Tue, 2013/10/22 06:35: > > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Christian Hesse <list at eworm.de> wrote: > > > > Hello everybody, > > > > > > > > iPXE builds
2014 Nov 24
2
Windows PE booting without chainloading ipxe
Adding an option for initrdfile= boot argument to be ignored by wimboot worked just fine. They can add this patch, which is probably most sane, or syslinux could add the INITRDFILE configuration option instead of having to append the option for linux.c32 wimboot-2.4.0/src/cmdline.c @ Line ~107 } else if ( key == cmdline ) { /* Ignore unknown initial
2013 Jul 08
3
[5.xx-6.01] broken PXE with HTTP
On 07/05/2013 01:02 PM, Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi wrote: > > 5.00 [pxelinux.0] OK 5.01 [pxelinux.0] OK 5.02-pre1 > [pxelinux.0] OK 5.02-pre2 [pxelinux.0] OK 5.02-pre3 [pxelinux.0] > BAD (freeze, no error messages, 100% CPU used) > > 5.10-pre1 [pxelinux.0] BAD (freeze, no error messages, 100% CPU > used) 5.10-pre2 [pxelinux.0] BAD (Failed to load: ldlinux.c32,
2013 Oct 22
2
Boot iPXE from syslinux/isolinux
Gene Cumm <gene.cumm at gmail.com> on Tue, 2013/10/22 06:35: > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Christian Hesse <list at eworm.de> wrote: > > Hello everybody, > > > > iPXE builds an ISO image by default. (The build system has to be updated > > for new paths and to integrate ldlinux.c32, but that's not my problem.) > > > > With the binary
2014 Nov 24
1
Windows PE booting without chainloading ipxe
I have an interest in booting Windows PE from PXELinux, and it seems that wimboot from ipxe project is the solution. http://ipxe.org/wimboot MENU LABEL Windows 8.1 Enterprise PE Rescue (wimboot) com32 linux.c32 /wimboot APPEND initrdfile=/windows/win81/bootmgr,/windows/win81/boot/bcd,/windows/win81/boot/boot.sdi,/windows/win81/sources/boot.wim The initrdfile= is supported in Syslinux from
2013 Jul 16
2
pxechn.c32: passing options to iPXE
In PXELinux 4.06 (the vanilla version, not gpxelinux.0), I'm trying to use pxechn.c32 to call iPXE (undionly) with option 67 set to call an iPXE script. The relevant portion of my PXELinux config looks like this: LABEL MDT MENU LABEL ^B - MDT 2012 SP1 com32 pxechn.c32 APPEND undionly.kpxe -o 67.s=ipxe/mdt.ipxe However iPXE doesn't seem to get the option correctly, it goes into
2013 Dec 04
0
Boot iPXE from syslinux/isolinux
On 10/24/2013 01:09 AM, Christian Hesse wrote: >>> >>> version 6.02-pre5 works, 6.02-pre6 does not. >> >> Struggled with git bisect, but finally succeeded: >> >> 8f470e7bfe75f6401f6c5432988c620b863ad274 is the first bad commit >> commit 8f470e7bfe75f6401f6c5432988c620b863ad274 Author: Matt >> Fleming <matt.fleming at intel.com> Date:
2014 Jul 02
3
iPXE chain to lpxelinux.0 6.03-pre17 inconsistencies and failures
I believe I'm seeing a bug in lpxelinux.0 6.03-pre17 but I need some advice on how to isolate and troubleshoot this. (I can't try pre18 at the moment, but did try 4.07 and 5.10 and saw similar behavior, also with pxelinux.0, so although I'll give pre18 a try soon, some isolation/troubleshooting advice will be a good education no matter what.) To get to our PXE-launched tools from
2013 Jul 16
2
pxechn.c32: passing options to iPXE
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Gene Cumm <gene.cumm at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Alexandre Blanchette > <blanalex at gmail.com> wrote: > > In PXELinux 4.06 (the vanilla version, not gpxelinux.0), I'm trying to > use > > pxechn.c32 to call iPXE (undionly) with option 67 set to call an iPXE > > script. > > > > The
2015 Sep 21
2
Chaining to pxelinux.0 6.0.3 from iPXE - ldlinux.c32
If this is asked before, please point me at the answer, can't find it... With pxelinux 3.8.6 (or, < 5.x), I was able to chain boot pxelinux.0 from ipxe, having set appropriate values for DHCP options 210 and 209 for the remote file path and the config file. This doesn't work with 6.0.3. With 6.0.3, this throws the "failed to load ldconfig.c32" error now. The files are in
2013 Dec 04
1
Boot iPXE from syslinux/isolinux
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa at zytor.com> on Wed, 2013/12/04 09:43: > On 12/04/2013 12:38 AM, Christian Hesse wrote: > > > > Sure. Here we go: > > > > boot: debug -e bios_boot_linux calc_cmdline_offset > > boot: ipxe.lkrn > > Loading ipxe.lkrn... ok > > cmdline_offset at 0x9f7e0 > > Initial memory map: > > Could not find location
2015 Sep 23
3
Chaining to pxelinux.0 6.0.3 from iPXE - ldlinux.c32
On 9/23/2015 12:14 AM, Ady via Syslinux wrote: > About your customers' setup... > Are they using official binaries downloaded from kernel.org? Yes. Stock versions, no local modifications. > Which exact version of Syslinux are they using? I've tried versions 3.86, 4.07, 6.01, 6.03. We can only generally use 4.07 or less because of the described ipxe compatibility issues, 6.0x
2014 Nov 15
2
iPXE chain to lpxelinux.0 6.03 inconsistencies and failures
On 15 Nov 2014 05:06:52 +0200, Ady wrote: > > I would start by updating the BIOS. Prudent advice. As it turns out, I'm already at the latest version. On 15 Nov 2014 07:31:27 +0100, Geert Stappers wrote: > > And would reduce 'iPXE => pxe.0 => lpxelinux.0 => "vmlinux"' > into 'iPXE => "vmlinux"' That makes sense generally, but at
2013 Oct 09
5
Remove gpxe or replace with ipxe?
The gPXE in the Syslinux tree is ridiculously old. We could either replace it with iPXE or just drop it, giving people a recipe for how to integrate with iPXE themselves. What do people think? -hpa
2015 Sep 28
2
Chaining to pxelinux.0 6.0.3 from iPXE - ldlinux.c32
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 07:57:47AM -0600, Alan Sparks via Syslinux wrote: > On 9/24/2015 4:59 AM, Gene Cumm wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Gene Cumm <gene.cumm at gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Now I have something I can reproduce. Booting my same ipxe.iso to > >> perform an initial TFTP load shows what I saw already. Attempting to > >>
2013 Dec 04
0
Boot iPXE from syslinux/isolinux
On 12/04/2013 12:38 AM, Christian Hesse wrote: > > Sure. Here we go: > > boot: debug -e bios_boot_linux calc_cmdline_offset > boot: ipxe.lkrn > Loading ipxe.lkrn... ok > cmdline_offset at 0x9f7e0 > Initial memory map: > Could not find location for protected-mode code > Booting kernel failed: Invalid argument > OK, that was a useful clue. I think I know what is
2009 Apr 09
1
iSCSI booting Windows XP
Dear Developer: i am working a project including iSCSI booting. i have a iscsi server with windows xp system image and fedora system image, and a booting server providing dhcp and tftp services.I made some menus using pxelinux and things are working fine with linux, but failed with windows . i use the following strings in my dhcpd.conf: ....... filename = "pxelinux.0";
2015 Sep 23
4
Chaining to pxelinux.0 6.0.3 from iPXE - ldlinux.c32
On 9/23/2015 3:32 PM, Ady via Syslinux wrote: > >> On 9/23/2015 2:08 PM, Ady via Syslinux wrote: >> >>> Even if it still hangs with this test, does it hang exactly as before >>> (i.e. shows only one character and hangs immediately)? >> >> It happens with one entry, or two entries, or three. >> The configuration works otherwise perfectly on any
2015 Jul 31
2
EFI: ipxe + syslinux = Failed to read blocks: 0xC
On 31-07-15 14:25, Patrick Masotta wrote: > ""exponential-like decay of IO rate"" could you please post a link on > your comments on this? Sure, see the thread starting at: http://www.syslinux.org/archives/2015-June/023621.html And Gene's confirmation at: http://www.syslinux.org/archives/2015-June/023629.html > OK I got lost. > are you saying you finally