[arch-general] / mounted ro after update

older
[arch-general] Has arch considered...

P .NIKOLIC

13 Sep 2012 13 Sep '12

4:35 p.m.

Hi folks Having been in hospital for a while i updated this system a couple of days ago and am having some strange problems If i run pacman -Syu i get 7-of-9:/ # pacman -Syu :: Synchronising package databases... error: failed to update core (unable to lock database) error: failed to update extra (unable to lock database) error: failed to update community (unable to lock database) error: failed to update multilib (unable to lock database) error: failed to synchronise any databases error: failed to init transaction (unable to lock database) error: could not lock database: Read-only file system mount gives 7-of-9:/ # mount proc on /proc type proc (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime) sys on /sys type sysfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime) dev on /dev type devtmpfs (rw,nosuid,relatime,size=1990844k,nr_inodes=497711,mode=755) run on /run type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,mode=755) /dev/sda3 on / type ext4 (ro,relatime,data=ordered) devpts on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,nosuid,noexec,relatime,gid=5,mode=620,ptmxmode=000) shm on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime) tmpfs on /tmp type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime) /dev/sda4 on /home type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered) /dev/sda1 on /boot type ext2 (rw,relatime) binfmt on /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc type binfmt_misc (rw,relatime) gvfs-fuse-daemon on /home/pete/.gvfs type fuse.gvfs-fuse-daemon (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,user_id=1000,group_id=100) contents of /etc/fstab # # /etc/fstab: static file system information # # <file system> <dir> <type> <options> <dump> <pass> tmpfs /tmp tmpfs nodev,nosuid 0 0 UUID=34fd95b0-a146-47a8-8fa4-78dcedd8c127 /home ext4 defaults 0 1 UUID=49c2a61c-19e8-4f45-b8ef-72507d60ee06 /boot ext2 defaults 0 1 UUID=a1439104-fcea-4c90-b0fb-2340154a9eae / ext4 defaults 0 1 UUID=b25ccd70-a144-40af-8126-303d7333cdb4 swap swap defaults 0 0 7-of-9:/ # uname -a Linux 7-of-9 3.5.3-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Sun Aug 26 09:14:51 CEST 2012 x86_64 GNU/Linux Hints please where to look i have compared this system to the laptop and can see no major differences i have checked the drive it reports all ok Pete . -- Linux 7-of-9 3.5.3-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Sun Aug 26 09:14:51 CEST 2012 x86_64 GNU/Linux

Show replies by date

Aurko Roy

13 Sep 13 Sep

4:59 p.m.

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 10:05 PM, P .NIKOLIC wrote:

...

Hi folks

Having been in hospital for a while i updated this system a couple of days ago and am having some strange problems

If i run pacman -Syu i get 7-of-9:/ # pacman -Syu :: Synchronising package databases... error: failed to update core (unable to lock database) error: failed to update extra (unable to lock database) error: failed to update community (unable to lock database) error: failed to update multilib (unable to lock database) error: failed to synchronise any databases error: failed to init transaction (unable to lock database) error: could not lock database: Read-only file system

mount gives

7-of-9:/ # mount proc on /proc type proc (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime) sys on /sys type sysfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime) dev on /dev type devtmpfs (rw,nosuid,relatime,size=1990844k,nr_inodes=497711,mode=755) run on /run type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,mode=755) /dev/sda3 on / type ext4 (ro,relatime,data=ordered) devpts on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,nosuid,noexec,relatime,gid=5,mode=620,ptmxmode=000) shm on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime) tmpfs on /tmp type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime) /dev/sda4 on /home type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered) /dev/sda1 on /boot type ext2 (rw,relatime) binfmt on /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc type binfmt_misc (rw,relatime) gvfs-fuse-daemon on /home/pete/.gvfs type fuse.gvfs-fuse-daemon (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,user_id=1000,group_id=100)

contents of /etc/fstab

# # /etc/fstab: static file system information # # <file system> <dir> <type> <options> <dump> <pass> tmpfs /tmp tmpfs nodev,nosuid 0 0 UUID=34fd95b0-a146-47a8-8fa4-78dcedd8c127 /home ext4 defaults 0 1 UUID=49c2a61c-19e8-4f45-b8ef-72507d60ee06 /boot ext2 defaults 0 1 UUID=a1439104-fcea-4c90-b0fb-2340154a9eae / ext4 defaults 0 1 UUID=b25ccd70-a144-40af-8126-303d7333cdb4 swap swap defaults 0 0

7-of-9:/ # uname -a Linux 7-of-9 3.5.3-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Sun Aug 26 09:14:51 CEST 2012 x86_64 GNU/Linux

Hints please where to look i have compared this system to the laptop and can see no major differences i have checked the drive it reports all ok

Pete .

-- Linux 7-of-9 3.5.3-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Sun Aug 26 09:14:51 CEST 2012 x86_64 GNU/Linux

What is the output of blkid? I recall reading a similar problem on the forum (https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=137255) where the problem was caused by an update to util-linux which had changed the uuid of the root partition so that the root could not be correctly remounted rw. Hope that helps. -- Aurko Roy GPG key: 0x20C5BC31 Fingerprint:76B4 9677 15BE 731D 1949 85BA 2A31 B442 20C5 BC31

P .NIKOLIC

8:26 p.m.

On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 22:29:02 +0530 Aurko Roy wrote:

...

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 10:05 PM, P .NIKOLIC wrote:

...
Hi folks

Having been in hospital for a while i updated this system a couple of days ago and am having some strange problems

If i run pacman -Syu i get 7-of-9:/ # pacman -Syu :: Synchronising package databases... error: failed to update core (unable to lock database) error: failed to update extra (unable to lock database) error: failed to update community (unable to lock database) error: failed to update multilib (unable to lock database) error: failed to synchronise any databases error: failed to init transaction (unable to lock database) error: could not lock database: Read-only file system

mount gives

7-of-9:/ # mount proc on /proc type proc (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime) sys on /sys type sysfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime) dev on /dev type devtmpfs (rw,nosuid,relatime,size=1990844k,nr_inodes=497711,mode=755) run on /run type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,mode=755) /dev/sda3 on / type ext4 (ro,relatime,data=ordered) devpts on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,nosuid,noexec,relatime,gid=5,mode=620,ptmxmode=000) shm on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime) tmpfs on /tmp type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime) /dev/sda4 on /home type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered) /dev/sda1 on /boot type ext2 (rw,relatime) binfmt on /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc type binfmt_misc (rw,relatime) gvfs-fuse-daemon on /home/pete/.gvfs type fuse.gvfs-fuse-daemon (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,user_id=1000,group_id=100)

contents of /etc/fstab

# # /etc/fstab: static file system information # # <file system> <dir> <type> <options> <dump> <pass> tmpfs /tmp tmpfs nodev,nosuid 0 0 UUID=34fd95b0-a146-47a8-8fa4-78dcedd8c127 /home ext4 defaults 0 1 UUID=49c2a61c-19e8-4f45-b8ef-72507d60ee06 /boot ext2 defaults 0 1 UUID=a1439104-fcea-4c90-b0fb-2340154a9eae / ext4 defaults 0 1 UUID=b25ccd70-a144-40af-8126-303d7333cdb4 swap swap defaults 0 0

7-of-9:/ # uname -a Linux 7-of-9 3.5.3-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Sun Aug 26 09:14:51 CEST 2012 x86_64 GNU/Linux

Hints please where to look i have compared this system to the laptop and can see no major differences i have checked the drive it reports all ok

Pete .

-- Linux 7-of-9 3.5.3-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Sun Aug 26 09:14:51 CEST 2012 x86_64 GNU/Linux

What is the output of blkid? I recall reading a similar problem on the forum (https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=137255) where the problem was caused by an update to util-linux which had changed the uuid of the root partition so that the root could not be correctly remounted rw.

Hope that helps.

Hummm now that i had not checked out put is 7-of-9:/ # blkid /dev/sda1: UUID="49c2a61c-19e8-4f45-b8ef-72507d60ee06" TYPE="ext2" /dev/sda2: UUID="b25ccd70-a144-40af-8126-303d7333cdb4" TYPE="swap" /dev/sda3: UUID="a1439104-fcea-4c90-b0fb-2340154a9eae" TYPE="ext4" /dev/sda4: UUID="34fd95b0-a146-47a8-8fa4-78dcedd8c127" TYPE="ext4" in this case thou they agree , my problem is mainly with /home . Thanks Pete . -- Linux 7-of-9 3.5.3-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Sun Aug 26 09:14:51 CEST 2012 x86_64 GNU/Linux

P .NIKOLIC

15 Sep 15 Sep

12:02 p.m.

On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 22:29:02 +0530 Aurko Roy wrote:

...

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 10:05 PM, P .NIKOLIC wrote:

...
Hi folks

Having been in hospital for a while i updated this system a couple of days ago and am having some strange problems

If i run pacman -Syu i get 7-of-9:/ # pacman -Syu :: Synchronising package databases... error: failed to update core (unable to lock database) error: failed to update extra (unable to lock database) error: failed to update community (unable to lock database) error: failed to update multilib (unable to lock database) error: failed to synchronise any databases error: failed to init transaction (unable to lock database) error: could not lock database: Read-only file system

mount gives

7-of-9:/ # mount proc on /proc type proc (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime) sys on /sys type sysfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime) dev on /dev type devtmpfs (rw,nosuid,relatime,size=1990844k,nr_inodes=497711,mode=755) run on /run type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,mode=755) /dev/sda3 on / type ext4 (ro,relatime,data=ordered) devpts on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,nosuid,noexec,relatime,gid=5,mode=620,ptmxmode=000) shm on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime) tmpfs on /tmp type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime) /dev/sda4 on /home type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered) /dev/sda1 on /boot type ext2 (rw,relatime) binfmt on /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc type binfmt_misc (rw,relatime) gvfs-fuse-daemon on /home/pete/.gvfs type fuse.gvfs-fuse-daemon (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,user_id=1000,group_id=100)

contents of /etc/fstab

# # /etc/fstab: static file system information # # <file system> <dir> <type> <options> <dump> <pass> tmpfs /tmp tmpfs nodev,nosuid 0 0 UUID=34fd95b0-a146-47a8-8fa4-78dcedd8c127 /home ext4 defaults 0 1 UUID=49c2a61c-19e8-4f45-b8ef-72507d60ee06 /boot ext2 defaults 0 1 UUID=a1439104-fcea-4c90-b0fb-2340154a9eae / ext4 defaults 0 1 UUID=b25ccd70-a144-40af-8126-303d7333cdb4 swap swap defaults 0 0

7-of-9:/ # uname -a Linux 7-of-9 3.5.3-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Sun Aug 26 09:14:51 CEST 2012 x86_64 GNU/Linux

Hints please where to look i have compared this system to the laptop and can see no major differences i have checked the drive it reports all ok

Pete .

-- Linux 7-of-9 3.5.3-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Sun Aug 26 09:14:51 CEST 2012 x86_64 GNU/Linux

What is the output of blkid? I recall reading a similar problem on the forum (https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=137255) where the problem was caused by an update to util-linux which had changed the uuid of the root partition so that the root could not be correctly remounted rw.

Hope that helps.

Humm well still having the same problem i have tried using the older version of util-linux to no avail all disc ID's are correct so what has been screwed up this was perfect until the update or am i going to be forced to re-install not an option i look forward to Pete . -- Linux 7-of-9 3.5.3-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Sun Aug 26 09:14:51 CEST 2012 x86_64 GNU/Linux

Andy Pieters

4:10 p.m.

...

On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 22:29:02 +0530 Aurko Roy wrote:

...
...
Hints please where to look i have compared this system to the laptop and can see no major differences i have checked the drive it reports all ok

Pete .

Humm well still having the same problem i have tried using the older version of util-linux to no avail

all disc ID's are correct so what has been screwed up this was perfect until the update or am i going to be forced to re-install not an option i look forward to

Pete . Please accept my apologies if this offends you or appears condescending to you in any way, I have been told by people that they

...

From the information you have given so far, you are able to boot up successfully, right? I do remember a glitch when upgrading a while ago

Hi Pete On 15 September 2012 13:02, P .NIKOLIC wrote: perceive me as such at time. I assure you I mean no offence. Now that that is out of the way, let's get down to business. that caused a similar issue. Until I found the solution, I just added mount / -orw,rebind in /etc/rc.local That caused my / partition to be rw as soon as the boot sequence is completed but still caused my some issues during the daemon start up. After a while I moved that line to /etc/rc.sysinit so it would execute before the daemons. Still a while later I discovered what the problem was, and I think it was in /etc/fstab, something really obvious, in hind sight but I cannot recall at the moment. Would you mind attaching your fstab? Maybe seeing it will trigger my memory. Andy

P .NIKOLIC

4:24 p.m.

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 17:10:15 +0100 Andy Pieters wrote:

...

Hi

Pete

...
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 22:29:02 +0530 Aurko Roy wrote:

...
...
Hints please where to look i have compared this system to the laptop and can see no major differences i have checked the drive it reports all ok

Pete .

Humm well still having the same problem i have tried using the older version of util-linux to no avail

all disc ID's are correct so what has been screwed up this was perfect until the update or am i going to be forced to re-install not an option i look forward to

Pete . Please accept my apologies if this offends you or appears condescending to you in any way, I have been told by people that they

On 15 September 2012 13:02, P .NIKOLIC wrote: perceive me as such at time. I assure you I mean no offence.

Now that that is out of the way, let's get down to business.

From the information you have given so far, you are able to boot up successfully, right? I do remember a glitch when upgrading a while ago that caused a similar issue. Until I found the solution, I just added mount / -orw,rebind in /etc/rc.local

That caused my / partition to be rw as soon as the boot sequence is completed but still caused my some issues during the daemon start up. After a while I moved that line to /etc/rc.sysinit so it would execute before the daemons.

Still a while later I discovered what the problem was, and I think it was in /etc/fstab, something really obvious, in hind sight but I cannot recall at the moment. Would you mind attaching your fstab? Maybe seeing it will trigger my memory.

Andy

Hi Andy . Dont worry about your reply ideas and comments you are the height of politeness compared with some on the lists not just this one either so dont worry I have compared this machine with the laptop that is similar processor ect and same partitioning layout , i can see no difference between the 2 apart from the actual UUID of the partitions i will have a play with some of those suggestions shortly see what happens . I have a feeling it may well be related to the latest util-linux and a another that was changed at the big update i did . Watch this space . Of course noone else will offer any assistance will they EHhhhh! Pete . -- Linux 7-of-9 3.5.3-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Sun Aug 26 09:14:51 CEST 2012 x86_64 GNU/Linux

Andy Pieters

5:11 p.m.

mount -orw,remount / of course, not rebind On 15 September 2012 17:24, P .NIKOLIC wrote:

...

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 17:10:15 +0100 Andy Pieters wrote:

...
Hi

Pete

...
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 22:29:02 +0530 Aurko Roy wrote:

...
...
Hints please where to look i have compared this system to the laptop and can see no major differences i have checked the drive it reports all ok

Pete .

Humm well still having the same problem i have tried using the older version of util-linux to no avail

all disc ID's are correct so what has been screwed up this was perfect until the update or am i going to be forced to re-install not an option i look forward to

Pete . Please accept my apologies if this offends you or appears condescending to you in any way, I have been told by people that they

On 15 September 2012 13:02, P .NIKOLIC wrote: perceive me as such at time. I assure you I mean no offence.

Now that that is out of the way, let's get down to business.

From the information you have given so far, you are able to boot up successfully, right? I do remember a glitch when upgrading a while ago that caused a similar issue. Until I found the solution, I just added mount / -orw,rebind in /etc/rc.local

That caused my / partition to be rw as soon as the boot sequence is completed but still caused my some issues during the daemon start up. After a while I moved that line to /etc/rc.sysinit so it would execute before the daemons.

Still a while later I discovered what the problem was, and I think it was in /etc/fstab, something really obvious, in hind sight but I cannot recall at the moment. Would you mind attaching your fstab? Maybe seeing it will trigger my memory.

Andy

Hi Andy .

Dont worry about your reply ideas and comments you are the height of politeness compared with some on the lists not just this one either so dont worry

I have compared this machine with the laptop that is similar processor ect and same partitioning layout , i can see no difference between the 2 apart from the actual UUID of the partitions i will have a play with some of those suggestions shortly see what happens .

I have a feeling it may well be related to the latest util-linux and a another that was changed at the big update i did .

Watch this space .

Of course noone else will offer any assistance will they EHhhhh!

Pete .

-- Linux 7-of-9 3.5.3-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Sun Aug 26 09:14:51 CEST 2012 x86_64 GNU/Linux

David C. Rankin

17 Sep 17 Sep

7:01 p.m.

On 09/15/2012 11:24 AM, P .NIKOLIC wrote:

...

Of course noone else will offer any assistance will they EHhhhh!

Pete .

Pete, You know me, I'm never quite to the ire of many, but I haven't a clue what you are dealing with here... Let us know what it ultimately turns out to be and if it is an issue with util-linux on Arch's end, file a report so it gets fixed before it bites me :) -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.

German Cabarcas

10:18 p.m.

I had a problem of this sort recently, due to my root partition being full, so i went ahead and performed a: # pacman -Sc Before trying to update once again and things were rolling as normal back again, hope it helps. German C.

P .NIKOLIC

18 Sep 18 Sep

7:37 a.m.

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 17:18:50 -0500 German Cabarcas wrote:

...

I had a problem of this sort recently, due to my root partition being full, so i went ahead and performed a:

# pacman -Sc

Before trying to update once again and things were rolling as normal back again, hope it helps.

German C.

Hi .. Yes looked at that both / and /home are only about 30% used over 400Gb free on /home and 100Gb on / Pete . -- Linux 7-of-9 3.5.3-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Sun Aug 26 09:14:51 CEST 2012 x86_64 GNU/Linux

P .NIKOLIC

7:35 a.m.

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:01:26 -0500 "David C. Rankin" wrote:

...

On 09/15/2012 11:24 AM, P .NIKOLIC wrote:

...
Of course noone else will offer any assistance will they EHhhhh!

Pete .

Pete,

You know me, I'm never quite to the ire of many, but I haven't a clue what you are dealing with here... Let us know what it ultimately turns out to be and if it is an issue with util-linux on Arch's end, file a report so it gets fixed before it bites me :)

Morning David Yes this is a real cracker and it only started after a big update . What i have found is if i boot with the Arch boot cd the fsck both "/ and /home " it will boot fine but like this morning it has booted but with / mounted ro which means i can not do any updates another time it will be /home that comes up ro but there is no problem to be found with the disc itself , I am wondering if it is an SATA problem again . I have had too many problems with those stupid crappy designed sata data cables , i have never seen such a pile of puke as the SATA connection design and whoever designed and ratified needs to be hung drawn and slaughtered. Pete . -- Linux 7-of-9 3.5.3-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Sun Aug 26 09:14:51 CEST 2012 x86_64 GNU/Linux

Jude DaShiell

7:47 a.m.

Whenever does an install of archlinux, they also do a big update so it's safe to say I got nailed by this problem too. I'm not going to dismiss out of hand the probability that util-linux is at fault, but when I tried the installs this past weekend I suspected mkinitcpio or perhaps syslinux-install_update might be at fault. However if in this update process neither of those utilities were used, then both of them are cleared. It seems when util-linux finishes running after install or update it fails to set the sticky bits on partitions and lesser components in the linux file system at least in ext4 which is what I used to try the installs this past weekend in line with the installation guide on the archlinux wiki. On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, P .NIKOLIC wrote:

...

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:01:26 -0500 "David C. Rankin" wrote:

...
On 09/15/2012 11:24 AM, P .NIKOLIC wrote:

...
Of course noone else will offer any assistance will they EHhhhh!

Pete .

Pete,

You know me, I'm never quite to the ire of many, but I haven't a clue what you are dealing with here... Let us know what it ultimately turns out to be and if it is an issue with util-linux on Arch's end, file a report so it gets fixed before it bites me :)

Morning David

Yes this is a real cracker and it only started after a big update .

What i have found is if i boot with the Arch boot cd the fsck both "/ and /home " it will boot fine but like this morning it has booted but with / mounted ro which means i can not do any updates another time it will be /home that comes up ro but there is no problem to be found with the disc itself , I am wondering if it is an SATA problem again .

I have had too many problems with those stupid crappy designed sata data cables , i have never seen such a pile of puke as the SATA connection design and whoever designed and ratified needs to be hung drawn and slaughtered.

Pete .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- jude Adobe fiend for failing to Flash

P .NIKOLIC

8:53 a.m.

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 03:47:26 -0400 (EDT) Jude DaShiell wrote:

...

Whenever does an install of archlinux, they also do a big update so it's safe to say I got nailed by this problem too. I'm not going to dismiss out of hand the probability that util-linux is at fault, but when I tried the installs this past weekend I suspected mkinitcpio or perhaps syslinux-install_update might be at fault. However if in this update process neither of those utilities were used, then both of them are cleared. It seems when util-linux finishes running after install or update it fails to set the sticky bits on partitions and lesser components in the linux file system at least in ext4 which is what I used to try the installs this past weekend in line with the installation guide on the archlinux wiki.

HUmmmm you got me wondering now that could well be both partitions that have the problem are ext4 why i did not change them to my more normal XFS i dont know .. I may have to back a lot up and rebuild but this time i will let my normal hate of the entire EXT file system rule and go XFS never been let down there .. Pete .

...

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, P .NIKOLIC wrote:

...
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:01:26 -0500 "David C. Rankin" wrote:

...
On 09/15/2012 11:24 AM, P .NIKOLIC wrote:

...
Of course noone else will offer any assistance will they EHhhhh!

Pete .

Pete,

You know me, I'm never quite to the ire of many, but I haven't a clue what you are dealing with here... Let us know what it ultimately turns out to be and if it is an issue with util-linux on Arch's end, file a report so it gets fixed before it bites me :)

Morning David

Yes this is a real cracker and it only started after a big update .

What i have found is if i boot with the Arch boot cd the fsck both "/ and /home " it will boot fine but like this morning it has booted but with / mounted ro which means i can not do any updates another time it will be /home that comes up ro but there is no problem to be found with the disc itself , I am wondering if it is an SATA problem again .

I have had too many problems with those stupid crappy designed sata data cables , i have never seen such a pile of puke as the SATA connection design and whoever designed and ratified needs to be hung drawn and slaughtered.

Pete .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- jude Adobe fiend for failing to Flash

-- Linux 7-of-9 3.5.3-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Sun Aug 26 09:14:51 CEST 2012 x86_64 GNU/Linux

David C. Rankin

7:26 p.m.

On 09/18/2012 03:53 AM, P .NIKOLIC wrote:

...

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 03:47:26 -0400 (EDT) Jude DaShiell wrote:

...
...
Whenever does an install of archlinux, they also do a big update so it's safe to say I got nailed by this problem too. I'm not going to dismiss out of hand the probability that util-linux is at fault, but when I tried the installs this past weekend I suspected mkinitcpio or perhaps syslinux-install_update might be at fault. However if in this update process neither of those utilities were used, then both of them are cleared. It seems when util-linux finishes running after install or update it fails to set the sticky bits on partitions and lesser components in the linux file system at least in ext4 which is what I used to try the installs this past weekend in line with the installation guide on the archlinux wiki. HUmmmm you got me wondering now that could well be both partitions that have the problem are ext4 why i did not change them to my more normal XFS i dont know ..

I may have to back a lot up and rebuild but this time i will let my normal hate of the entire EXT file system rule and go XFS never been let down there ..

Pete .

Pete, I have run Arch on several filesystems and I've been lucky I guess. Currently on this box, I have ext3, ext4 and reiser (old SuSE 10.0 partition). This box has been running since mid-2009 and updates are usually weekly (sometimes I go a couple of weeks if I can't risk a break due to workload) I have not had any of the mount ro weirdness even after several multi-gigabyte updates. The current partitions I have are: /dev/sdc5 on / type ext3 (rw,relatime,data=ordered) /dev/sdc7 on /home type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered) /dev/sda2 on /mnt/pv type reiserfs (rw,relatime) /dev/sdb2 on /mnt/win type fuseblk (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,user_id=0,group_id=0,default_permissions,allow_other,blksize=4096) I don't know what is doing it in your case, but it seems like we should be able to figure out where mount ro/rw logic for the resides (I picture something like the following buried somewhere): if [conditional]; then mount -o rw [whatever] else mount -o ro [whatever] fi I suspect this may be complicated by the fact that mounting (or remounting) takes place in several different places/processes during the boot. Anybody familiar with this off-hand or any idea where Pete might look to rule-in or rule-out the different parts of boot that could effect this? Sorry I don't have more, I just haven't had the need to dissect the boot mount process to that level before... I guess you are just lucky :) -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.

P .NIKOLIC

19 Sep 19 Sep

7:33 a.m.

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:26:32 -0500 "David C. Rankin" wrote:

...

On 09/18/2012 03:53 AM, P .NIKOLIC wrote:

...
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 03:47:26 -0400 (EDT) Jude DaShiell wrote:

...
...
Whenever does an install of archlinux, they also do a big update so it's safe to say I got nailed by this problem too. I'm not going to dismiss out of hand the probability that util-linux is at fault, but when I tried the installs this past weekend I suspected mkinitcpio or perhaps syslinux-install_update might be at fault. However if in this update process neither of those utilities were used, then both of them are cleared. It seems when util-linux finishes running after install or update it fails to set the sticky bits on partitions and lesser components in the linux file system at least in ext4 which is what I used to try the installs this past weekend in line with the installation guide on the archlinux wiki. HUmmmm you got me wondering now that could well be both partitions that have the problem are ext4 why i did not change them to my more normal XFS i dont know ..

I may have to back a lot up and rebuild but this time i will let my normal hate of the entire EXT file system rule and go XFS never been let down there ..

Pete .

Pete,

I have run Arch on several filesystems and I've been lucky I guess. Currently on this box, I have ext3, ext4 and reiser (old SuSE 10.0 partition). This box has been running since mid-2009 and updates are usually weekly (sometimes I go a couple of weeks if I can't risk a break due to workload) I have not had any of the mount ro weirdness even after several multi-gigabyte updates. The current partitions I have are:

/dev/sdc5 on / type ext3 (rw,relatime,data=ordered) /dev/sdc7 on /home type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered) /dev/sda2 on /mnt/pv type reiserfs (rw,relatime) /dev/sdb2 on /mnt/win type fuseblk (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,user_id=0,group_id=0,default_permissions,allow_other,blksize=4096)

I don't know what is doing it in your case, but it seems like we should be able to figure out where mount ro/rw logic for the resides (I picture something like the following buried somewhere):

if [conditional]; then mount -o rw [whatever] else mount -o ro [whatever] fi

I suspect this may be complicated by the fact that mounting (or remounting) takes place in several different places/processes during the boot. Anybody familiar with this off-hand or any idea where Pete might look to rule-in or rule-out the different parts of boot that could effect this? Sorry I don't have more, I just haven't had the need to dissect the boot mount process to that level before...

I guess you are just lucky :)

Hi David yes i am torn right now between it being either SATA related or ext4 related both of which have caused me untold problems before i have had 2 previous SATA drives die because of the insult of a data connection causing crossed connections and ext4 several problems in the old Suse days . The laptop running exactly the same stuff (they are mirrors of each other) but on XFS and IDE is perfect I see a reinstall on the horizon worst luck Pete . -- Linux 7-of-9 3.5.3-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Sun Aug 26 09:14:51 CEST 2012 x86_64 GNU/Linux

Jude DaShiell

20 Sep 20 Sep

8:02 a.m.

...

/mnt/etc/fstab in all installation attempts. One thing not explained on the beginners guide is what does labels buy you as opposed to what does uid's buy you with genfstab. Also, I did learn syslinux does not support xfs the root of the disk could not be found whenever I used xfs. Grub-legacy I think is gone and grub-bios didn't work and neither did

I neglected to mention when I did a genfstab I used genfstab -p -L /mnt lilo. I can try more things later but not without some suggestions and sighted assistance to tell me what the next failing boot screen produces. On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, David C. Rankin wrote:

...

On 09/18/2012 03:53 AM, P .NIKOLIC wrote:

...
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 03:47:26 -0400 (EDT) Jude DaShiell wrote:

...
...
Whenever does an install of archlinux, they also do a big update so it's safe to say I got nailed by this problem too. I'm not going to dismiss out of hand the probability that util-linux is at fault, but when I tried the installs this past weekend I suspected mkinitcpio or perhaps syslinux-install_update might be at fault. However if in this update process neither of those utilities were used, then both of them are cleared. It seems when util-linux finishes running after install or update it fails to set the sticky bits on partitions and lesser components in the linux file system at least in ext4 which is what I used to try the installs this past weekend in line with the installation guide on the archlinux wiki. HUmmmm you got me wondering now that could well be both partitions that have the problem are ext4 why i did not change them to my more normal XFS i dont know ..

I may have to back a lot up and rebuild but this time i will let my normal hate of the entire EXT file system rule and go XFS never been let down there ..

Pete .

Pete,

I have run Arch on several filesystems and I've been lucky I guess. Currently on this box, I have ext3, ext4 and reiser (old SuSE 10.0 partition). This box has been running since mid-2009 and updates are usually weekly (sometimes I go a couple of weeks if I can't risk a break due to workload) I have not had any of the mount ro weirdness even after several multi-gigabyte updates. The current partitions I have are:

/dev/sdc5 on / type ext3 (rw,relatime,data=ordered) /dev/sdc7 on /home type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered) /dev/sda2 on /mnt/pv type reiserfs (rw,relatime) /dev/sdb2 on /mnt/win type fuseblk (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,user_id=0,group_id=0,default_permissions,allow_other,blksize=4096)

I don't know what is doing it in your case, but it seems like we should be able to figure out where mount ro/rw logic for the resides (I picture something like the following buried somewhere):

if [conditional]; then mount -o rw [whatever] else mount -o ro [whatever] fi

I suspect this may be complicated by the fact that mounting (or remounting) takes place in several different places/processes during the boot. Anybody familiar with this off-hand or any idea where Pete might look to rule-in or rule-out the different parts of boot that could effect this? Sorry I don't have more, I just haven't had the need to dissect the boot mount process to that level before...

I guess you are just lucky :)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- jude Adobe fiend for failing to Flash

nailz

8:27 p.m.

I did an install yesterday and i too had / mounted as read only (syslinux) I triple boot and Arch is on HDD3 so i use Sabayons grub to boot into arch , after messin with the fstab it was all good , is this another new "feature of Arch" ? seems there's more spanners flying than at a scaffolders convention of late , still i enjoy the challenge . On 20 September 2012 09:02, Jude DaShiell wrote:

...

...
/mnt/etc/fstab in all installation attempts. One thing not explained on the beginners guide is what does labels buy you as opposed to what does uid's buy you with genfstab. Also, I did learn syslinux does not support xfs the root of the disk could not be found whenever I used xfs. Grub-legacy I think is gone and grub-bios didn't work and neither did

I neglected to mention when I did a genfstab I used genfstab -p -L /mnt lilo. I can try more things later but not without some suggestions and sighted assistance to tell me what the next failing boot screen produces.

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, David C. Rankin wrote:

...
On 09/18/2012 03:53 AM, P .NIKOLIC wrote:

...
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 03:47:26 -0400 (EDT) Jude DaShiell wrote:

...
...
Whenever does an install of archlinux, they also do a big update so it's safe to say I got nailed by this problem too. I'm not going to dismiss out of hand the probability that util-linux is at fault, but when I tried the installs this past weekend I suspected mkinitcpio or perhaps syslinux-install_update might be at fault. However if in this update process neither of those utilities were used, then both of them are cleared. It seems when util-linux finishes running after install or update it fails to set the sticky bits on partitions and lesser components in the linux file system at least in ext4 which is what I used to try the installs this past weekend in line with the installation guide on the archlinux wiki. HUmmmm you got me wondering now that could well be both partitions that have the problem are ext4 why i did not change them to my more normal XFS i dont know ..

I may have to back a lot up and rebuild but this time i will let my normal hate of the entire EXT file system rule and go XFS never been let down there ..

Pete .

Pete,

I have run Arch on several filesystems and I've been lucky I guess. Currently on this box, I have ext3, ext4 and reiser (old SuSE 10.0 partition). This box has been running since mid-2009 and updates are usually weekly (sometimes I go a couple of weeks if I can't risk a break due to workload) I have not had any of the mount ro weirdness even after several multi-gigabyte updates. The current partitions I have are:

/dev/sdc5 on / type ext3 (rw,relatime,data=ordered) /dev/sdc7 on /home type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered) /dev/sda2 on /mnt/pv type reiserfs (rw,relatime) /dev/sdb2 on /mnt/win type fuseblk

(rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,user_id=0,group_id=0,default_permissions,allow_other,blksize=4096)

...
I don't know what is doing it in your case, but it seems like we

should be

...
able to figure out where mount ro/rw logic for the resides (I picture something like the following buried somewhere):

if [conditional]; then mount -o rw [whatever] else mount -o ro [whatever] fi

I suspect this may be complicated by the fact that mounting (or remounting) takes place in several different places/processes during the boot. Anybody familiar with this off-hand or any idea where Pete might look to rule-in or rule-out the different parts of boot that could effect this? Sorry I don't have more, I just haven't had the need to dissect the boot mount process to that level before...

I guess you are just lucky :)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- jude Adobe fiend for failing to Flash

-- www.cirrusminor.info http://cirrusminor.info http://www.cirrusminor.info/ http://www.cirrusminor.info/ http://www.cirrusminor.info/

Guus Snijders

10:21 p.m.

Op 20 sep. 2012 10:03 schreef "Jude DaShiell" het volgende: [...]

...

Also, I did learn syslinux does not support xfs the root of the disk could not be found whenever I used xfs. Grub-legacy I think is gone and grub-bios didn't work and neither did lilo. I can try more things later but not without some suggestions and sighted assistance to tell me what the next failing boot screen produces.

Well, for the bootloader part: how about a "small" partition for /boot, with an ext2/3 filesystem? Works every time ;-) As for the labels/uuids: i still prefer the readability of devices (/dev/sda1), so can't really help there. mvg, Guus

Jude DaShiell

21 Sep 21 Sep

4:46 a.m.

What's a good size number for a /boot partition? Needs to be large enough kernel updates don't break the computer if possible or a reasonable estimate to that end. On Fri, 21 Sep 2012, Guus Snijders wrote:

...

Op 20 sep. 2012 10:03 schreef "Jude DaShiell" het volgende: [...]

...
Also, I did learn syslinux does not support xfs the root of the disk could not be found whenever I used xfs. Grub-legacy I think is gone and grub-bios didn't work and neither did lilo. I can try more things later but not without some suggestions and sighted assistance to tell me what the next failing boot screen produces.

Well, for the bootloader part: how about a "small" partition for /boot, with an ext2/3 filesystem? Works every time ;-)

As for the labels/uuids: i still prefer the readability of devices (/dev/sda1), so can't really help there.

mvg, Guus

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- jude Adobe fiend for failing to Flash

Kevin Chadwick

8:22 a.m.

...

What's a good size number for a /boot partition? Needs to be large enough kernel updates don't break the computer if possible or a reasonable estimate to that end.

50 Meg per kernel should future proof, though I hope default kernels never get that large. -- _______________________________________________________________________ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) _______________________________________________________________________

Guus Snijders

5 p.m.

Op 21 sep. 2012 06:46 schreef "Jude DaShiell" het volgende:

...

What's a good size number for a /boot partition? Needs to be large enough kernel updates don't break the computer if possible or a reasonable estimate to that end.

Let's say 250 MB. Small enough that you don't miss the space, large enough to hold an small rescue system and/or memtest.

...

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012, Guus Snijders wrote:

...
Op 20 sep. 2012 10:03 schreef "Jude DaShiell" het volgende: [...]

...
Also, I did learn syslinux does not support xfs the root of the disk could not be found whenever I used xfs. Grub-legacy I think is gone and grub-bios didn't work and neither did lilo. I can try more things later but not without some suggestions and sighted assistance to tell me what the next failing boot screen produces.

Well, for the bootloader part: how about a "small" partition for /boot, with an ext2/3 filesystem? Works every time ;-)

mvg, Guus

Kevin Chadwick

18 Sep 18 Sep

11:09 a.m.

...

I have had too many problems with those stupid crappy designed sata data cables , i have never seen such a pile of puke as the SATA connection design and whoever designed and ratified needs to be hung drawn and slaughtered.

The same is true of almost all cables with more than a few wires and in fact all computer equipment in that the originals are good and as they get cheaper and cheaper and cheaper, the failure rates skyrocket. Some motherboards are now advertising "double the copper". If you are having that much trouble you could try buying some more expensive likely non China versions. -- _______________________________________________________________________ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) _______________________________________________________________________

Kevin Chadwick

11:07 a.m.

...

all disc ID's are correct so what has been screwed up this was perfect until the update or am i going to be forced to re-install not an option i look forward to

A workaround rather than a fix but may help investigate or fix the odd machine. Have you tried switching out the UUID=a1439104-fcea-4c90-b0fb-2340154a9eae for /dev/sda3 in fstab? -- _______________________________________________________________________ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) _______________________________________________________________________

P .NIKOLIC

1:26 p.m.

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:07:55 +0100 Kevin Chadwick wrote:

...

...
all disc ID's are correct so what has been screwed up this was perfect until the update or am i going to be forced to re-install not an option i look forward to

A workaround rather than a fix but may help investigate or fix the odd machine. Have you tried switching out the

UUID=a1439104-fcea-4c90-b0fb-2340154a9eae for /dev/sda3 in fstab?

Hi Kevin No i have not tried that yet but i have found something that seems to point to an ext4 fs problem . If i shut the machine down after it has been running ok and all mounted correctly rw then reboot it will always come up dev/sda4 mounted ro , But if i boot from the latest arch cd and fsck.ext4 both sda3 and sda4 it will reboot fine all mounted rw again . I am getting no reports of disc problems at all makes me think it is both kernel and util-linux at fault as that is when it all started when both were updated Pete . -- Linux 7-of-9 3.5.3-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Sun Aug 26 09:14:51 CEST 2012 x86_64 GNU/Linux

P .NIKOLIC

21 Sep 21 Sep

7 a.m.

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:26:54 +0100 "P .NIKOLIC" wrote:

...

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:07:55 +0100 Kevin Chadwick wrote:

...
...
all disc ID's are correct so what has been screwed up this was perfect until the update or am i going to be forced to re-install not an option i look forward to

A workaround rather than a fix but may help investigate or fix the odd machine. Have you tried switching out the

UUID=a1439104-fcea-4c90-b0fb-2340154a9eae for /dev/sda3 in fstab?

Right then lets get back on thread here

Still with this problem of mounted ro i have been doing a little bit of messing and the result is to say the very least strange and out there somewhere . Bring the box up init3 all drives mount ok sda1 sda3 & sda4 all mount rw bring the machine up with KDM sda3 and sda4 both show ro but if i do not actually log into KDE and Ctrl Alt F1 to a text prompt login as root mount shows all drives correctly mounted rw the Alt F7 log into KDE then check and the drives have been re mounted ro Can someone explain that one cus i am up a gum tree the years i have been running Linux (Almost since day 1) i have never seen anything like this Pete -- Linux 7-of-9 3.5.4-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Sat Sep 15 08:12:04 CEST 2012 x86_64 GNU/Linux

Guus Snijders

5:07 p.m.

Op 21 sep. 2012 09:00 schreef "P .NIKOLIC" het volgende:

...

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:26:54 +0100 "P .NIKOLIC" wrote:

...
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:07:55 +0100 Kevin Chadwick wrote:

...
...
all disc ID's are correct so what has been screwed up this was perfect until the update or am i going to be forced to re-install not an option i look forward to

A workaround rather than a fix but may help investigate or fix the odd machine. Have you tried switching out the

UUID=a1439104-fcea-4c90-b0fb-2340154a9eae for /dev/sda3 in fstab?

Right then lets get back on thread here

yes, you're right.

...

Still with this problem of mounted ro i have been doing a little bit of messing and the result is to say the very least strange and out there somewhere .

Bring the box up init3 all drives mount ok sda1 sda3 & sda4 all mount rw

bring the machine up with KDM sda3 and sda4 both show ro but if i do not actually log into KDE and Ctrl Alt F1 to a text prompt login as root mount shows all drives correctly mounted rw the Alt F7 log into KDE then check and the drives have been re mounted ro

Ok, so only after logging in to kde are the drives mounted ro? Sounds like an automounter going haywire. I'm not familliar with current KDE's, but maybe you can try creating a new user and see what happens when you log in with that. If that works ok, it's a problem with your KDE config. mvg, Guus

4242

Age (days ago)

4250

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

25 comments

9 participants

participants (9)

Andy Pieters
Aurko Roy
David C. Rankin
German Cabarcas
Guus Snijders
Jude DaShiell
Kevin Chadwick
nailz
P .NIKOLIC