nd I'm not gona try to delete it before unmounting
it.
So how do you delete a subvolume? Why isn't the path adjusted when
renaming it? That must be somehow buggy.
> > with btrfs, how do I make a snapshot of the root file system? The
> > purpose is to update software and bein
On Sun, Oct 1, 2023 at 7:20 AM hw wrote:
>
> Hi,
Hello! I'm not going into much detail but maybe I can guide you to
better be able to find what you want.
> with btrfs, how do I make a snapshot of the root file system? The
> purpose is to update software and being able to go b
Try ext4
All the best
Keith BAINBRIDGE
+61 (0)447 667 468
keithr...@gmail.com
UTC + 10
>From my Apad
-- Forwarded message -
From: Keith Bainbridge
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2023, 20:32
Subject: Re: btrfs snapshots (of root file system)?
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
I
; with btrfs, how do I make a snapshot of the root file system? The
> purpose is to update software and being able to go back to a previous
> state if necessary.
>
> There doesn't seem to be a command to create snapshots but only
> subvolumes? How does a subvolume turn into a
On Sun, 2023-10-01 at 10:51 +0100, debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote:
> hw wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > with btrfs, how do I make a snapshot of the root file system? The
> > purpose is to update software and being able to go back to a previous
> > state if necessary.
hw wrote:
> Hi,
>
> with btrfs, how do I make a snapshot of the root file system? The
> purpose is to update software and being able to go back to a previous
> state if necessary.
>
> There doesn't seem to be a command to create snapshots but only
> subvolumes? H
Hi,
with btrfs, how do I make a snapshot of the root file system? The
purpose is to update software and being able to go back to a previous
state if necessary.
There doesn't seem to be a command to create snapshots but only
subvolumes? How does a subvolume turn into a snapshot? (The root
, Jarle Aase wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This morning my workstation booted into a read-only root file
> system. I assumed that it was the old SSD drive that was closing
> to end of life, - but when I booted my laptop, that also booted
> into read-only.
>
> The system came up after I
Hi,
This morning my workstation booted into a read-only root file system. I
assumed that it was the old SSD drive that was closing to end of life, -
but when I booted my laptop, that also booted into read-only.
The system came up after I re-mounted root to read-write, and re-started
kdm
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> The bathtub curve also applies for software systems, in practice. When
> you aim for realiability, you need to consider the general maintenance
> state of the underlying kernel code (bitrot that crept in as other parts
> of the kernel changed and evolved, gener
On 05/12/2015 08:34 AM, Ken Heard wrote:
Why not ... create RAID1 with two drives, then LVM,
and set up encryption for three LVM virtual partitions, swap (random
key), tmp and home (both with passphrases)-- everything else in
unencrypted virtual partitions.
TIMTOWTDI. I prefer to encrypt eve
On 2015-05-05 12:39, David Christensen wrote:
Briefly -- to obtain encrypted file systems, the process is to create
partitions, mark them as encrypted volumes, configure the encrypted
volumes, and then put LVM and/or file systems into the encrypted volumes.
Why not the other way? I have bee
On Mon, May 11, 2015, at 12:36, Renaud OLGIATI wrote:
> On Mon, 11 May 2015 11:50:41 -0300
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > In that sense, ext2 is not nearly as good a choice as it once was. A
> > newly created ext3 with default parameters (yes, that means it gets a
> > journal -- that's
On Mon, 11 May 2015 11:50:41 -0300
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> In that sense, ext2 is not nearly as good a choice as it once was. A
> newly created ext3 with default parameters (yes, that means it gets a
> journal -- that's how it gets most use and most testing) is a better bet
> nowada
On Fri, May 8, 2015, at 17:00, Bob Proulx wrote:
> I always use and recommend ext2 for /boot. It avoids wasting space in
The bathtub curve also applies for software systems, in practice. When
you aim for realiability, you need to consider the general maintenance
state of the underlying kernel co
Juha Heinanen wrote:
> Bob Proulx writes:
> > Why no LVM? Using LVM is the way I always do it because that allows
>
> I didn't have any particular reason to avoid LVM. I just tried if
> encrypted installation succeeds without it. Now that I tried with LVM,
> installation was simple and worked wi
David Christensen wrote:
> Juha Heinanen wrote:
> > On Partition settings screen, I choose Use as Ext2, Mount point /boot, and
> > Bootable flag on. Then I choose Done setting up the partition.
>
> Why ext2? I use ext4.
I always use and recommend ext2 for /boot. It avoids wasting space in
the
Bob Proulx writes:
> Why no LVM? Using LVM is the way I always do it because that allows
> me to encrypt a single partition and therefore only require a single
> passphrase to decrypt and load. Typically with multiple partitions
> then each and every separate partition requires a passphrase. Th
Juha Heinanen wrote:
> I'll watch the video, but I was not planing to use LVM and my problem is
> related to non-LVM partition encyrption.
Why no LVM? Using LVM is the way I always do it because that allows
me to encrypt a single partition and therefore only require a single
passphrase to decrypt
On 05/05/2015 10:34 AM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Here are the steps I made.
Detect disk results in screen where the disk that I try to partition
shows pri/log 15.8 GB FREE SPACE.
I will assume you have a 16 GB drive with no other partitions.
I select it and on the next screen, I select Create a
now shows
three partitions:
#1 primary 14.7 MB ext2 /boot
#5 logical 15.1 GB crypto (sdc5_crypt)
#6 logical 693.1 MB crypto (sdc5_crypt)
Then I select Finish partitioning and write changes to disk. That
results in red screen complaining No root file system Please correct
this from the
Patrick Bartek writes:
> More details of exactly what you did would help. That is. Did you use
> LVM or Primary/Logical partitioning? Which partitions did you encrypt?
> You didn't encrypt /boot did you? Did you let the installer handle the
> partitioning and encryption or did you set up encrypti
ed to describe. After I have properly
configured encrypted root partition (mount point is /) and then write the
partition to disk, the mount point has disappeared and I get the error
message "No root file system defined". When I have more time, I'll send
detailed email about the s
On Mon, 04 May 2015, Juha Heinanen wrote:
> I'm trying to install debian jessie with three partitions: /boot, /,
> and swap. i'm able to create and encrypt the partitions fine, but
> when I then try to changes to disk, installer complains:
>
> No root file system def
On 05/04/2015 11:02 AM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
I'm trying to install debian jessie with three partitions: /boot, /, and
swap. i'm able to create and encrypt the partitions fine, but when I
then try to changes to disk, installer complains:
No root file system defined, please correct
I'm trying to install debian jessie with three partitions: /boot, /, and
swap. i'm able to create and encrypt the partitions fine, but when I
then try to changes to disk, installer complains:
No root file system defined, please correct this from partitioning menu.
The second par
still upload the content of the files to "www.pastebin.com"
After 'waiting for root file system' and the 5 minute wait, initrd drops
to a shell and says "/dev/dis/by-label/wd80_0jd-60.06 does not exist"
and sure enough it don't and that us the new sata conne
e). Also, include the output of "fdisk -l" that will help us to
>> get a better understanding of your current system structure :-)
>>
>>
> I can't attach files: TB hangs forever then, will register via yahoo!
You mean Thunderbird is facing any problem? :-?
Maybe now is a good time for you to put your Grub's menu config (either upload
the full file to an external server or attach the file to the message). Also,
include the output of "fdisk -l" that will help us to get a better
understanding of your current system structure :-)
I use SGD. I at
angs after initrd with "waiting for root file system"
So, you have changed not only the board but also the disk interface (it
was ide and now is sata)? Does the new kernel has "libata" module loaded?
It was a sata disk in an external enclosure connected with USB, now it
nd boots it, but
> it hangs after initrd with "waiting for root file system"
So, you have changed not only the board but also the disk interface (it
was ide and now is sata)? Does the new kernel has "libata" module loaded?
Maybe now is a good time for you to put your Grub&#x
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 09:58:00 -0600, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
> I changed motherboards and now when I boot I get "waiting for root file
> system".
(...)
Same motherboard or a different (brand/model) one?
How are the sata BIOS settings now and then (sata/ahci/raid)? Maybe you
Camaleón wrote:
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 09:58:00 -0600, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
I changed motherboards and now when I boot I get "waiting for root file
system".
(...)
Same motherboard or a different (brand/model) one?
Different motherboard/cpu/memory old:epox 8VTAI new:asus M
Hi,
I changed motherboards and now when I boot I get "waiting for root file
system".
But the disks have not changed, they are the same ones as with the old
motherboard. All partitions are labelled.
One disk had a USB connection on the old motherboard and now has a SATA
connection.
Tim Tebbit wrote:
>
> Long Wind wrote:
> > I use etch, which resides at /dev/sda4
> > how to check /dev/sda4 for errors?
>
>
> fsck from liveCD
> or
> shutdown -rF which will fsck on its way back up.
Or
$ touch /forcefsck && reboot
>
> Are you experiencing errors?
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE
On 2009-09-14 01:32, Sven Joachim wrote:
On 2009-09-14 03:43 +0200, Ron Johnson wrote:
[snip]
Using a Live CD is the safest route...
No need to fiddle with that, "shutdown -Fr now" should do the trick.
But the boot continues.
Probably just a personal foible, but I like to be able to do
On 2009-09-14 03:43 +0200, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 2009-09-13 18:33, Steve Reilly wrote:
>> Long Wind wrote:
>>> I use etch, which resides at /dev/sda4
>>> how to check /dev/sda4 for errors?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> fsck /dev/yourdevice
>>
>
> You can't fsck a mounted fs, and / is most certainly mounted.
Tr
On 2009-09-13 18:33, Steve Reilly wrote:
Long Wind wrote:
I use etch, which resides at /dev/sda4
how to check /dev/sda4 for errors?
fsck /dev/yourdevice
You can't fsck a mounted fs, and / is most certainly mounted.
Using a Live CD is the safest route...
--
Brawndo's got what plants crav
Long Wind wrote:
> I use etch, which resides at /dev/sda4
> how to check /dev/sda4 for errors?
>
>
fsck /dev/yourdevice
--
Steve Reilly
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Long Wind wrote:
> I use etch, which resides at /dev/sda4
> how to check /dev/sda4 for errors?
fsck from liveCD
or
shutdown -rF which will fsck on its way back up.
Are you experiencing errors?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". T
I use etch, which resides at /dev/sda4
how to check /dev/sda4 for errors?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009, Niu Kun wrote:
> Robert P. J. Day 写道:
> > On Fri, 21 Aug 2009, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Sat, 22 Aug 2009, Niu Kun wrote:
> > >
> > > (with respect to getting my /dev/sda* device files built)
> > >
> > >
> > > > So here, your best choice seems to try.
> > > > he
Robert P. J. Day 写道:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009, Niu Kun wrote:
(with respect to getting my /dev/sda* device files built)
So here, your best choice seems to try.
here's my z60_hdparm.rules file:
i'm assuming that's a brand new rules fil
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009, Niu Kun wrote:
>
> (with respect to getting my /dev/sda* device files built)
>
> > So here, your best choice seems to try.
> > here's my z60_hdparm.rules file:
>
> i'm assuming that's a brand new rules file, right? not just add
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009, Niu Kun wrote:
(with respect to getting my /dev/sda* device files built)
> So here, your best choice seems to try.
> here's my z60_hdparm.rules file:
i'm assuming that's a brand new rules file, right? not just adding
to an existing rules file since i have no such file.
>
d to)
etch system to the newly-installed 2.6 kernel (either 2.6.18 or
2.6.24, either original or rebuilt), i got:
Waiting for root file system...
and it hung, with all evidence pointing to the fact that the booting
system simply couldn't see the hard drive, which it could see under
the earli
Niu Kun wrote:
>>
>>
>>
> Pretty cool.
> Really appreciate your detailed reply.
>
>
NP. hope it helps or gives you at least an idea how I'm doing this.
I've had several times related issues as I've been using raid/lvm and also
encryption, so years ago I wrote my own scripts to create initrd
Emanoil Kotsev 写道:
Niu Kun wrote:
and last but not least it's pretty tricky to boot broken initram but not
too hard if you know the steps.
Would you please say something about this?
Or any useful link that can be referenced?
regards
First of all I would try to provi
Niu Kun wrote:
>> and last but not least it's pretty tricky to boot broken initram but not
>> too hard if you know the steps.
>>
> Would you please say something about this?
> Or any useful link that can be referenced?
>> regards
First of all I would try to provide the root kernel option. If y
the newly-installed 2.6 kernel (either 2.6.18 or
2.6.24, either original or rebuilt), i got:
Waiting for root file system...
and it hung, with all evidence pointing to the fact that the booting
system simply couldn't see the hard drive, which it could see under
the earlier (devfs-enabled
Emanoil Kotsev 写道:
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009, Niu Kun wrote:
Have you ever run update-initramfs command manually on the
pre-compiled kernel? I remember that I fixed such a problem once.
Hope this will help. And look forward to your feedback.
nope -- as i me
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2009, Niu Kun wrote:
>
>> Have you ever run update-initramfs command manually on the
>> pre-compiled kernel? I remember that I fixed such a problem once.
>> Hope this will help. And look forward to your feedback.
>
> nope -- as i mentioned earlier, i'm
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009, Niu Kun wrote:
> Have you ever run update-initramfs command manually on the
> pre-compiled kernel? I remember that I fixed such a problem once.
> Hope this will help. And look forward to your feedback.
nope -- as i mentioned earlier, i'm fairly new to debian so a good
deal
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> that is the *ultimate* goal, but i'm doing this in steps. on the
> chance that it's the default 2.6.18 etch kernel, i just upgraded that
> to the 2.6.24 etchnhalf kernel. we'll see if that fixes things.
upgrading to the 2.6.24 etchnhalf kernel
n fact contain
megaraid modules.)
thoughts? the last few lines of boot diagnostics are:
Done.
Begin: Mounting root file system ...
Begin: Running /scripts/local-top ...
Done.
Begin: Waiting for root file system ...
then ... hang. it's pretty clearly a problem in just
seeing/accessin
garaid controller that might be relevant? i've
> > opened up the relevant initrd image and it does in fact contain
> > megaraid modules.)
> >
> > thoughts? the last few lines of boot diagnostics are:
> >
> > Done.
> > Begin: Mounting root file system
of boot diagnostics are:
Done.
Begin: Mounting root file system ...
Begin: Running /scripts/local-top ...
Done.
Begin: Waiting for root file system ...
then ... hang. it's pretty clearly a problem in just
seeing/accessing the sole hard drive in the system. i just
stics are:
Done.
Begin: Mounting root file system ...
Begin: Running /scripts/local-top ...
Done.
Begin: Waiting for root file system ...
then ... hang. it's pretty clearly a problem in just
seeing/accessing the sole hard drive in the system. i just
Dear all,
I've got an old Debian sarge box.
And I want to upgrade it to the newest lenny stable version.
I've encountered the problem mentioned in the following link:
http://www200.pair.com/mecham/spam/kernel.html
I had tried to upgrade my system to etch once, but the system failed to
boot after
On Friday 2009 January 23 01:38:57 lovecreatesbeauty.g-mail.c0m wrote:
>I updated kernel on debian-40r6 (2.6.18) to 2.6.28 from kernel.org,
>and got the error* "Waiting for root file system..." when booting the
>new kernel.
Ah, I've seen that a few times, myself.
>T
On Jan 23, 4:00 pm, "lovecreatesbeauty.g-mail.c0m"
wrote:
> kernel /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.28.1 root=/dev/sda1 ro
> initrd /boot/initrd.img-2.6.28.1
>
sorry the occurences of "28.1" above should be "28" .
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subj
[I'm sorry if it's boring you]
I updated kernel on debian-40r6 (2.6.18) to 2.6.28 from kernel.org,
and got the error* "Waiting for root file system..." when booting the
new kernel.
The linux's hosted in VMware Workstation 6.0. The commands I issued
were: m
On Sun, 2008-06-22 at 11:18 -0400, Mag Gam wrote:
> This is more of a theoretical Unix question,
>
> When there are no users on the system, the system is idle, would there
> still be I/O activity on the root disks?
Yes.
> If so, what processes will be doing the I/O ?
Writing to log, cron jobs
Very good points.
Trying to understand Linux from a theoretical point of view.
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Gilles Mocellin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Le Sunday 22 June 2008 18:08:45 Ron Johnson, vous avez écrit :
> > On 06/22/08 11:01, Mag Gam wrote:
> > > Ok, so in theory assuming no p
Le Sunday 22 June 2008 18:08:45 Ron Johnson, vous avez écrit :
> On 06/22/08 11:01, Mag Gam wrote:
> > Ok, so in theory assuming no processes use hd resources then there
> > should be no HD activity.
>
> Swap. Even if you have adequate memory, Linux will occasionally
> move things to swap space.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/22/08 11:01, Mag Gam wrote:
> Ok, so in theory assuming no processes use hd resources then there
> should be no HD activity.
Swap. Even if you have adequate memory, Linux will occasionally
move things to swap space. Of course, you can disable
Ok, so in theory assuming no processes use hd resources then there should be
no HD activity.
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 11:36 AM, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Mag Gam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is more of a theoretical Unix question,
> >
> > When the
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Mag Gam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is more of a theoretical Unix question,
>
> When there are no users on the system, the system is idle, would there still
> be I/O activity on the root disks?
>
> If so, what processes will be doing the I/O ?
Depends entirel
This is more of a theoretical Unix question,
When there are no users on the system, the system is idle, would there still
be I/O activity on the root disks?
If so, what processes will be doing the I/O ?
TIA
On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 10:04:12AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On May 5, 5:40 am, Alex Samad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 03:50:28AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > $ cat /proc/partitions
> > > major minor #blocks name
> > >8 08388608 sda
> > >
On May 4, 7:20 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
The mount reports this inside that broken newly built 2.6.25
(initramfs) mount
none on /sys type sysfs (rw)
none on /proc type proc (rw)
udev on /udev type tmpfs (rw, size=10240k,mode=755)
(initramfs)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, ema
On May 5, 5:40 am, Alex Samad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 03:50:28AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > $ cat /proc/partitions
> > major minor #blocks name
> >8 08388608 sda
> >8 1 273073 sda1
> >8 2 1 sda2
> >8 530603
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 03:50:28AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On May 4, 6:40 pm, Alex Samad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 11:35:29PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Under the (initramfs) prompt, the uname -r reports 2.6.25.
> > what is the output of cat /proc/
On May 4, 6:40 pm, Alex Samad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 11:35:29PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Under the (initramfs) prompt, the uname -r reports 2.6.25.
> what is the output of cat /proc/partitions, can you
> see /dev/sda.
> maybe the driver for you had is not i
On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 11:35:29PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
[snip]
> Under the (initramfs) prompt, the uname -r reports 2.6.25.
what is the output of cat /proc/partitions, can you see /dev/sda.
maybe the driver for you had is not in .25
>
>
> Thank you for your time.
>
>
> --
Hi,
It presents the following error when I'm booting kernel 2.6.25 from
Debian40r3 with built-in kernel 2.6.18-6-486 in VMWare:
>Begin: Waiting for root file system... ...
>Done.
> Check root= bootarg cat /proc/cmdline
> or missing modules. devices: cat /proc/modules ls
x27;s new randomness in how partitions are named
> during boot.
> Debian and other installers have not
> yet worked around this relatively new problem.
>
> What you're seeing is an effect of that.
> The udeb installer kernel got a different set of
> device names than the
boot.
Debian and other installers have not
yet worked around this relatively new problem.
What you're seeing is an effect of that.
The udeb installer kernel got a different set of
device names than the installed kernel did, and the
root file system never appears where the installed
kernel has
Florian Kulzer skrev:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 06:39:11 -0500, dave N wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Question: In the menu.lst grub file, how would I use
>> the label assignment in the line:
>>
>> kernel /vmlinuz-2.6.18-5-686 root=/dev/sdc2 ro
>
> I think this should be OK:
>
> kernel /vmlinuz-2.6.1
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 07:23:06AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I've been trying to find what the UUID of my swap file is but can't find
blkid (as it was already suggested in this thread)
from man blkid
The blkid program is the command-line interface to working with
libuuid(3) library.
- Original Message -
From: "NN_il_Confusionario" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 1:15 AM
Subject: Re: 3rd SATA scrambles drive order? "Begin: Waiting for root file
system . . . . . ."
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 11:52:29AM -0600, Jona
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 11:52:29AM -0600, Jonathan Wilson wrote:
> Someone else said using IDs in fstab only works with ext2/3, obviously
> tune2fs
> does, and I use ReiserFS. What then?
from man mount:
It is possible to indicate a block special device using its volume
label or UUID (see th
On Thursday 03 January 2008 13:02, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 01/03/08 11:52, Jonathan Wilson wrote:
> > Someone else said using IDs in fstab only works with ext2/3, obviously
> > tune2fs does, and I use ReiserFS. What then? I'm interested in thre
> > "Maybe" part, since UUIDs won't work for my situat
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 06:39:11 -0500, dave N wrote:
[...]
> Question: In the menu.lst grub file, how would I use
> the label assignment in the line:
>
> kernel /vmlinuz-2.6.18-5-686 root=/dev/sdc2 ro
I think this should be OK:
kernel /vmlinuz-2.6.18-5-686 root=LABEL=your_root_label ro
I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/03/08 11:52, Jonathan Wilson wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 January 2008 23:40, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> On Jan 2, 2008 9:37 PM, Jonathan Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Is there something I can do about this? To make the new drive be sdc, I
>>> me
On Wednesday 02 January 2008 23:40, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Jan 2, 2008 9:37 PM, Jonathan Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is there something I can do about this? To make the new drive be sdc, I
> > mean?
>
> Why not mount by filesystem label instead of device name? The
> filesystem label do
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/03/08 08:05, Stuart Gall wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jonathan Wilson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I have a computer with an Intel mainboard (I"ll look up the
>> exact model later if it matters) running Etch.
>>
>> / is an 80G
e just fine, the boot info
> shows sdc, but after all the drive and ethernet detection, I get the
> following message:
>
> Begin: Waiting for root file system . . .. . .
>
> (I'll note here that as soon as I unplug the SATA cable from the new drive
> and
> reboot ever
--- Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 10:24:07AM -0800, Andrew
> Sackville-West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
> heard to say:
> > On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 06:24:07AM -0500, dave N
> wrote:
> > If you wait long enough (at least 30 seconds,
> maybe a couple minutes,
> > I
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 10:24:07AM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 06:24:07AM -0500, dave N wrote:
> If you wait long enough (at least 30 seconds, maybe a couple minutes,
> I can't remember) you should get dropped to a busybox shell. The
On Jan 2, 2008 9:37 PM, Jonathan Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there something I can do about this? To make the new drive be sdc, I mean?
Why not mount by filesystem label instead of device name? The
filesystem label doesn't change just because disks decided to detect
in a different ord
. I've only got
2 SATA ports left, 3 and 4. If I plug the new drive into either one, the
machine boots, the bios recognizes the new drive just fine, the boot info
shows sdc, but after all the drive and ethernet detection, I get the
following message:
Begin: Waiting for root file system .
Andrei Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 06:04:18AM
-0500, dave N wrote:
> I booted with Knoppix live and there is nothing in /var/log/messages, none of
> the logs appear to have changed since I last booted 2 days ago. I have not
> run fsck or anything else on this yet
photo of the screen
> messages)
>
> Begin: Mounting root file system... ...
> Begin: running /scripts/local-top ...
> ide0: I/O resource 0x1F0-0x1F7 not free.
> ide0: ports already in use, skipping probe
> ide1: I/O resource 0x170-0x177 not free.
> ide1: port
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 06:04:18AM -0500, dave N wrote:
> I booted with Knoppix live and there is nothing in /var/log/messages, none
> of the logs appear to have changed since I last booted 2 days ago. I have not
> run fsck or anything else on this yet.
>
> Ideas?
This is usually a
formatted during install using ext3.
During boot the system appears to find all the drives OK when I am reading as
fast as I can, but then I get the following (from a photo of the screen
messages)
Begin: Mounting root file system... ...
Begin: running /scripts/local-top ...
ide0: I/O
During boot the system appears to find all the drives OK when I am reading as
fast as I can, but then I get the following (from a photo of the screen
messages)
Begin: Mounting root file system... ...
Begin: running /scripts/local-top ...
ide0: I/O resource 0x1F0-0x1F7 not free.
i
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 07:13:49PM +0200, wanderlust wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I'm trying to install Debian/etch on Acer Aspire 5520G, but the problem
> is, that kernel 2.6.18 doesn't support Marvell netcard 436b. I found it
> is supportable in 2.6.23.9, so I decided to compile it. I used default
> conf
Hello.
I'm trying to install Debian/etch on Acer Aspire 5520G, but the problem
is, that kernel 2.6.18 doesn't support Marvell netcard 436b. I found it
is supportable in 2.6.23.9, so I decided to compile it. I used default
configuration, taken from /proc/config.gz and after compiling and
installing
hich didn't work for me for kernel 2.6.23.8)
> but it gave no error (when I fixed 2.6.23.8 to compile with gcc 4.3 it did
> give
> me similar error though)
Udev is playing tricks on you. The kernel you compliled recognizes
things in a different order, and udev gives them different nam
1 - 100 of 153 matches
Mail list logo
