FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux General Discussion

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-18-2012, 07:37 AM
"P .NIKOLIC"
 
Default / mounted ro after update

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 17:18:50 -0500
German Cabarcas <cmdr.chili@gmail.com> 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
 
Old 09-18-2012, 07:47 AM
Jude DaShiell
 
Default / mounted ro after update

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" <drankinatty@suddenlinkmail.com> 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 <jdashiel@shellworld.net>
Adobe fiend for failing to Flash
 
Old 09-18-2012, 08:53 AM
"P .NIKOLIC"
 
Default / mounted ro after update

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 03:47:26 -0400 (EDT)
Jude DaShiell <jdashiel@shellworld.net> 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" <drankinatty@suddenlinkmail.com> 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 <jdashiel@shellworld.net>
> 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
 
Old 09-18-2012, 11:07 AM
Kevin Chadwick
 
Default / mounted ro after update

> 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)
__________________________________________________ _____________________
 
Old 09-18-2012, 11:09 AM
Kevin Chadwick
 
Default / mounted ro after update

> 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)
__________________________________________________ _____________________
 
Old 09-18-2012, 01:26 PM
"P .NIKOLIC"
 
Default / mounted ro after update

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:07:55 +0100
Kevin Chadwick <ma1l1ists@yahoo.co.uk> 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
 
Old 09-18-2012, 07:26 PM
"David C. Rankin"
 
Default / mounted ro after update

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

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 03:47:26 -0400 (EDT)
Jude DaShiell<jdashiel@shellworld.net> 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_i d=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.
 
Old 09-19-2012, 07:33 AM
"P .NIKOLIC"
 
Default / mounted ro after update

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:26:32 -0500
"David C. Rankin" <drankinatty@suddenlinkmail.com> wrote:

> On 09/18/2012 03:53 AM, P .NIKOLIC wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 03:47:26 -0400 (EDT)
> > Jude DaShiell<jdashiel@shellworld.net> 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_i d=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
 
Old 09-20-2012, 08:02 AM
Jude DaShiell
 
Default / mounted ro after update

I neglected to mention when I did a genfstab I used genfstab -p -L /mnt
> /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
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<jdashiel@shellworld.net> 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_i d=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 <jdashiel@shellworld.net>
Adobe fiend for failing to Flash
 
Old 09-20-2012, 08:27 PM
nailz
 
Default / mounted ro after update

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 <jdashiel@shellworld.net> wrote:

> I neglected to mention when I did a genfstab I used genfstab -p -L /mnt
> > /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
> 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<jdashiel@shellworld.net> 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_i d=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 <jdashiel@shellworld.net>
> Adobe fiend for failing to Flash
>
>
>


--


www.cirrusminor.info <http://cirrusminor.info>
<http://www.cirrusminor.info/>
<http://www.cirrusminor.info/>

<http://www.cirrusminor.info/>
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:56 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org