Can't boot 2.6.32-3 after running 2.6.32-5 for a while
in [Debian]
|
From: Camaleón on 23 Jun 2010 14:30 On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:04:53 -0400, Stephen Powell wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:33:16 -0400 (EDT), Camaleón wrote: >> >> So, all entries in "/etc/lilo.conf" are pointing to "uuid" devices or >> just the ones loading the "-3" kernel? > > There are only two lines in /etc/lilo.conf that are relevant: boot and > root. Both are in the global section, not in a per-image section. (...) How is that? Can't LiLo manage a multiboot menu or is a personal configuration? :-? I ask because I never used LiLo but GRUB, and here is quite normal to have several lines/sections allowing the user to boot the desired kernel/ system. Can you copy/paste the relevant "lilo.conf" boot entries you are using for both, the ones that boot "-3" kernel and the ones that boot "-5" kernel? Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2010.06.23.18.20.07(a)gmail.com
From: Tom H on 23 Jun 2010 14:40 On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Stephen Powell <zlinuxman(a)wowway.com> wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:35:50 -0400 (EDT), Tom H wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Stephen Powell <zlinuxman(a)wowway.com> wrote: >>> ... >>> I then tried to boot my old kernel (the -3 >>> kernel). It failed. The kernel and initial RAM file system >>> were loaded just fine by the boot loader, but the -3 kernel >>> couldn't make the switch between the initial RAM file system and >>> the permanent root file system. >>> ... >> >> IIUC, linux-image-2.6.32-3-686 uses hdX and linux-image-2.6.32-5-686 >> uses sdX so wouldn't your update-initramfs have updated your >> linux-image-2.6.32-3-686 initrd with sdX device names? > > No. I changed the /dev/sdX device names to uuid udev aliases in > /etc/fstab, /etc/lilo.conf, and /etc/initramfs-tools/conf.d/resume > prior to issuing "update-initramfs -uk all". And these alias > names should exist in the -3 kernel too. As an example, I changed > > /dev/sda1 > > to something like > > /dev/disk/by-uuid/04db5929-51e6-424a-ac5b-a592b96b9d04 > > udev under the -5 kernel creates a symbolic link by this name to > /dev/sda1. udev under the -3 kernel creates a symbolic link by > this name to /dev/hda1. Or at least it should. Theoretically. But don't you think that your -3 initrd is creating links to sda1, etc because you built it while booted into -5? You should unpack your -3 initrd to check its udev rules; symlinks to hda1, etc are probably not being created. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/AANLkTimSL8Nnd7Xj8p4uNeRzEkeqYE1Dzu561HvKo60p(a)mail.gmail.com
From: Tom H on 23 Jun 2010 14:50 On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Tom H <tomh0665(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Stephen Powell <zlinuxman(a)wowway.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:35:50 -0400 (EDT), Tom H wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Stephen Powell <zlinuxman(a)wowway.com> wrote: >>>> ... >>>> I then tried to boot my old kernel (the -3 >>>> kernel). It failed. The kernel and initial RAM file system >>>> were loaded just fine by the boot loader, but the -3 kernel >>>> couldn't make the switch between the initial RAM file system and >>>> the permanent root file system. >>>> ... >>> >>> IIUC, linux-image-2.6.32-3-686 uses hdX and linux-image-2.6.32-5-686 >>> uses sdX so wouldn't your update-initramfs have updated your >>> linux-image-2.6.32-3-686 initrd with sdX device names? >> >> No. I changed the /dev/sdX device names to uuid udev aliases in >> /etc/fstab, /etc/lilo.conf, and /etc/initramfs-tools/conf.d/resume >> prior to issuing "update-initramfs -uk all". And these alias >> names should exist in the -3 kernel too. As an example, I changed >> >> /dev/sda1 >> >> to something like >> >> /dev/disk/by-uuid/04db5929-51e6-424a-ac5b-a592b96b9d04 >> >> udev under the -5 kernel creates a symbolic link by this name to >> /dev/sda1. udev under the -3 kernel creates a symbolic link by >> this name to /dev/hda1. Or at least it should. > > Theoretically. But don't you think that your -3 initrd is creating > links to sda1, etc because you built it while booted into -5? > > You should unpack your -3 initrd to check its udev rules; symlinks to > hda1, etc are probably not being created. One more thought. Rather than unpack the initrd, boot into -3 and run "cd /dev; ls" at the (initramfs) prompt. If udev has run and your initrd has bailed out at the equivalent of "break=mount", you should be able to see whether there are sda1 or hda1 type partitions. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/AANLkTinDD6p7VXamz6T6_sL3L_qQYEtucpq29600m61J(a)mail.gmail.com
From: Stephen Powell on 23 Jun 2010 15:50 On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:20:07 -0400 (EDT), Camaleón wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:04:53 -0400, Stephen Powell wrote: >> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:33:16 -0400 (EDT), Camaleón wrote: >>> >>> So, all entries in "/etc/lilo.conf" are pointing to "uuid" devices or >>> just the ones loading the "-3" kernel? >> >> There are only two lines in /etc/lilo.conf that are relevant: boot and >> root. Both are in the global section, not in a per-image section. > > How is that? Can't LiLo manage a multiboot menu or is a personal > configuration? :-? Of course it can. But the only thing that differs between the two kernels is the kernel image and its corresponding initial RAM file system image. They share the same permanent root file system. > > I ask because I never used LiLo but GRUB, and here is quite normal to > have several lines/sections allowing the user to boot the desired kernel/ > system. The same is true of lilo. > > Can you copy/paste the relevant "lilo.conf" boot entries you are using > for both, the ones that boot "-3" kernel and the ones that boot "-5" > kernel? If you want the exact configuration file, that will have to wait for about seven hours, until I have access to that machine again. But perhaps you will be satisfied with an approximation for now. Here is an approximation of what it looks like based on another machine. The uuids used in this example are from this substitute machine: ---------- # /etc/lilo.conf # # global options # # boot=/dev/sda2 boot=/dev/disk/by-uuid/04db5929-51e6-424a-ac5b-a592b96b9d04 compact default=Linux delay = 40 install=text large-memory lba32 # root=/dev/sda2 root=/dev/disk/by-uuid/04db5929-51e6-424a-ac5b-a592b96b9d04 read-only vga=3841 # # per-image options # image=/boot/vmlinuz label=Linux initrd=/boot/initrd.img # image=/boot/vmlinuz.old label=LinuxOld initrd=/boot/initrd.img.old optional ---------- I really don't think that the problem is in lilo (although I haven't ruled that out yet). lilo does successfully boot the old kernel. But it hangs part-way through the boot process. Under the 2.6.32-3 kernel, /dev/disk/by-uuid/04db5929-51e6-424a-ac5b-a592b96b9d04 is a symbolic link to /dev/hda2. Under the 2.6.32-5 kernel, /dev/disk/by-uuid/04db5929-51e6-424a-ac5b-a592b96b9d04 is a symbolic link to /dev/sda2. And in both cases, everything under /dev is a virtual file system created by udev. I suspect that the problem is in /etc/fstab, where similar entries are used, and I suspect that it has to do with the timing of when udev creates the symbolic link versus when it is being referenced. But that is just a hunch at this point. -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2141264565.236764.1277322162138.JavaMail.root(a)md01.wow.synacor.com
From: Camaleón on 23 Jun 2010 18:10 On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:42:42 -0400, Stephen Powell wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:20:07 -0400 (EDT), Camaleón wrote: >> How is that? Can't LiLo manage a multiboot menu or is a personal >> configuration? :-? > > Of course it can. But the only thing that differs between the two > kernels is the kernel image and its corresponding initial RAM file > system image. They share the same permanent root file system. Mmmm, understood. But it should be easier to configure two different root filesystsems to try with different setups, just in this case and just for testing. For example (quick and dirty sample): *** boot=/dev/disk/by-uuid/04db5929-51e6-424a-ac5b-a592b96b9d04 ### LILO -5 kernel image=/boot/vmlinuz label=Linux root=/dev/disk/by-uuid/04db5929-51e6-424a-ac5b-a592b96b9d04 initrd=/boot/initrd.img # ### LILO -3 kernel image=/boot/vmlinuz.old label=LinuxOld root=/dev/sda2 initrd=/boot/initrd.img.old optional *** Or: *** boot=/dev/sda2 ### LILO -5 kernel image=/boot/vmlinuz label=Linux root=/dev/disk/by-uuid/04db5929-51e6-424a-ac5b-a592b96b9d04 initrd=/boot/initrd.img # ### LILO -3 kernel image=/boot/vmlinuz.old label=LinuxOld root=/dev/disk/by-uuid/04db5929-51e6-424a-ac5b-a592b96b9d04 initrd=/boot/initrd.img.old optional *** And check if booting the old kernel in any of that way works. >> Can you copy/paste the relevant "lilo.conf" boot entries you are using >> for both, the ones that boot "-3" kernel and the ones that boot "-5" >> kernel? > > If you want the exact configuration file, that will have to wait for > about seven hours, until I have access to that machine again. But > perhaps you will be satisfied with an approximation for now. Here is an > approximation of what it looks like based on another machine. The uuids > used in this example are from this substitute machine: (...) > boot=/dev/disk/by-uuid/04db5929-51e6-424a-ac5b-a592b96b9d04 compact > root=/dev/disk/by-uuid/04db5929-51e6-424a-ac5b-a592b96b9d04 read-only > image=/boot/vmlinuz.old > label=LinuxOld > initrd=/boot/initrd.img.old > optional I do not know LILO at all, but GRUB can fail with "device not found" when has problems for locating the root device node. And I'm not sure at what extent a mix of both (GRUB and kernel versions) have support for "ID" or "UUID" naming :-? > I really don't think that the problem is in lilo (although I haven't > ruled that out yet). lilo does successfully boot the old kernel. But > it hangs part-way through the boot process. Under the 2.6.32-3 kernel, > /dev/disk/by-uuid/04db5929-51e6-424a-ac5b-a592b96b9d04 is a symbolic > link to /dev/hda2. Under the 2.6.32-5 kernel, > /dev/disk/by-uuid/04db5929-51e6-424a-ac5b-a592b96b9d04 is a symbolic > link to /dev/sda2. And in both cases, everything under /dev is a > virtual file system created by udev. > > I suspect that the problem is in /etc/fstab, where similar entries are > used, and I suspect that it has to do with the timing of when udev > creates the symbolic link versus when it is being referenced. But that > is just a hunch at this point. I'm interested in seeing how your testing goes. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2010.06.23.22.05.49(a)gmail.com
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: Unidentified subject! Next: Req. Advice from Lazy Web on Configuring 1.5TB extern. HD |