Kernel Panic: VFS Unable to ....

dariball · 2002-10-20 15:16:03

I installed the ArchLiNUX 0.3 and tried to restart and had the following Problem. Here a piece of the boot-output:

....
Net 4: Linux TCP/IP
IP Protocols : ICHD,UDP,TCP...
IP : hash Tables conf....
Net 4: Unix Domain Sockets.....
IPv6 v.0.8 for NET4
IPv6 over IPv4 Driver .....
attempt access beyond end of device
03:02: rw=0,want=2,limit=2
Ext3-FS : unable to read superblock
03:02: rw=....
Ext2-FS : unable to read superblock
03:02: rw=.....
ISOFS_READ_SUPER : unable to read superblock
03:02: rw=.....
READ_SUPER_BLOCK : unable to read superblock (bread failed)
Kernel Panic : VFS unable to mount root FS on 03:02
....
here is the point where the system freezes
in addition i'm posting my fstab here :

/dev/hda7 / ext2 defaults 0 1
/dev/hda6 /boot ext2 defaults 0 1
/dev/hda11 swap swap defaults 0 0

I can't figure the problem out !

can anyone help ?

( hardware :
gericom laptop
sis 930 chipset
pentium 3 1.1ghz
256 MB ram
)

thx

Jeepster · 2002-10-20 21:58:17

This is a problem we see all to often which usually turns out to be bad lilo.conf and fstab entires.

This particular one sounds to me like a bad lilo.conf, recheck it and then recheck it again, make sure they are correct, then rerun lilo.

Also recheck your fstab entries while they may appear correct its worth rechecking these too.

dariball · 2002-10-21 14:30:50

Yes,

you're right, was a little problem with the lilo.conf.

thx

Arielext · 2002-10-21 19:02:45

next time try the search first
Think this issue is one for the FAQ's

n00b_E · 2002-11-09 22:54:05

lilo default is:

root=/dev/disks/disk0/part2

while;

Auto-Prepare sets root to part3

which seems to me an avoidable an inconsistency

in the case of users (like myself) who are used to simply seeing

/dev/hda1

the inconsistency doesnt stand out as immediatley
(at least this is the case with me)

if in future releases of arch
default lilo.conf pointed to /part3 then
users who opt for auto-prepare wont need
change anything here in lilo.conf
unless they opt for custom partitioning

just a thought

Jeepster · 2002-11-10 00:04:49

Your suggestion is already in the works and should be available for archlinux 0.4.

mordantly · 2002-11-10 19:35:24

isnt reinventing the wheel just so much fun?? im sorry to pick on people, but other Archers including myself have bitched and moaned bouts the default lilo.conf and each one is responded to as being circumvented. so why dont people try searching the forum to see if the answer is already here??

n00b_E · 2002-11-11 00:42:12

fact is that I did look, and this thread was what i found posted on the subject..
fact is that this thread didnt speak to the solution nor did/does it point to a thread where the solution is covered.
In addition this is not a closed thread which, gave me the impression for that moment that It wasnt covered elsewhere.
fact is that possibly the next person who is faced with the same issue could find this thread and hopefully would glean the quick solution from the post i made.

unfortunately, the fact is just as you stated. this ground has been covered already
fact is that while the issue is to be addressed in the next release, its not addressed in the documentation
fact is that generally people do not read the boards for things that logically could, or by the same logic *should* be, in the documentation.

The reality is that it was dariball who walked me through resolving this very issue post-install
and with this being so well known, he shouldnt have had to.

IMO, the docs should have been changed to reflect the inconsistency when it became known.
I suppose thats a bit of a newbification for some?

So within my lame-assed-newb means, I was attempting from circumvent the perpetuation of wasted energy by
a.) raising the issue because I thought it was new and
b.) stating where the work around is to problem in the same post.

Pardon my ass for looking out for the next person who suffers from failing to meet your board scouring standards.

(Possibly, if you were a little less smug, you might have replied with a link to the other places this was covered for the next reader?
They too could suffer from the same apparent inability I have to scour the boards to a degree that meets your standards.
But maybe it would lend some validity to your post beyond perpetuating your own superiortiy or running up your post count?)

mordantly · 2002-11-11 21:54:48

well, n00b_E, lets take it from the top. ur correct on the sole basis of me not pointing u to one of the many statements of rectification in the next Arch release. it doesnt make any sense what so ever to have to answer the same question so frequently as it has been. thats the point of a forum... to give and get help. therefore, one would have to consider the possibility that a problem *may* already be mentioned, thus by spending two seconds page load time of the search page, we dont run in unproductive circles anylonger. now tell me just who is so hypocritically attempting to extend there superiority and post count here through the use of eloquent synonyms in an attempt to try and undermine our vocabularies?? well i got news fur u pal, my diction is just as articulate if not more so than ur use of a synonymical dictionary. so please get off ur pedistal, im not going to sit here and childishly squabble whit u because this forum is a place of fecundity not disparagement.

Jeepster · 2002-11-11 23:12:04

Now now boys, no need for this sort of argument.

Forums are and always have been a source for information.

Its also a fact the docs need a slight overall, especially a few additions here and there.

So, lets take the latter, your not happy with the docs? add to them yourselves and submit your changes. And if you say your cant then fair enough, but please, dont moan about something your not willing to fix yourself.

Let that be an end to any fuming argument.

mordantly · 2002-11-11 23:16:14

i have been working on an ammendment fur the faq. ill send it off once its nicely polished and then we will all be happy right??

n00b_E · 2002-11-11 23:23:29

I think addressing the duplicity of effort regarding documentation
would be a start.

in the intrest of productivity its probably better we are all pulling together
as opposed to duplicating what the other is doing.

that in no way is to slight what your writing in the least

but long term, i think it would be optimal for a more organized approach
to maintaining the documentaion.

specifically, something we could modify on the fly
as opposed to waiting for the next release to make changes.
(which seems like what we are doing)

scottro · 2002-11-12 04:00:59

You've made some good points as far as the documentation--when I started recommending Arch to friends, I put up a page, written mainly for people I knew that covered a few gotchas that I ran into when I installed. (I think Apeiro said he was going to link to it, but don't know if he did--could be that he looked at it and decided against it. )

Arch seems to be growing a little bit--it used to be that I could visit this forum and see no posts since my last visit, now it seems to be getting busier. As it does, the need for documentation will increase.

As for the lilo thingie--I remember when Gentoo first started, and the docs simply had a sample
/etc/fstab--however, as more newcomers started getting interested, they had to change it--at first, all the folks who looked at it were experienced and realized that if he wrote /BOOT it meant the boot partition--however, the newcomers would simply copy the doc and put BOOT in their fstab--this of course, caused problems.

With Arch's lilo, yes one does have to watch the default--it caught me a few times, simply forgot to change it. It should probably be mentioned somewhere as even experienced Linux users tend to get careless. What I found irksome was that when I booted using the CD as rescue, and fixed it, then tried to run lilo.conf, I'd messed something up, and wasn't able to do so--as it's a fast machine, I just found it quicker to reinstall (a basic Arch install takes me about 10 minutes on a 1.2 Duron with 300 something megs of RAM, as I felt too lazy to search for the answer.

I know that they want documentation, and your willingness to help is probably going to be appreciated.

Scott
(err, in case this post makes it sound like I'm an Arch elite, I'm not--I'm a newcomer to Arch like yourself.)

Jeepster · 2002-11-12 09:57:31

scottro wrote:

With Arch's lilo, yes one does have to watch the default--it caught me a few times, simply forgot to change it. It should probably be mentioned somewhere as even experienced Linux users tend to get careless. What I found irksome was that when I booted using the CD as rescue, and fixed it, then tried to run lilo.conf, I'd messed something up, and wasn't able to do so--as it's a fast machine, I just found it quicker to reinstall (a basic Arch install takes me about 10 minutes on a 1.2 Duron with 300 something megs of RAM, as I felt too lazy to search for the answer.

boot cd (for rescue purposes), log in
mount /dev/whatever /mnt
mount -o bind /proc /mnt/proc
mount -o bind /dev /mnt/dev
chroot /mnt /bin/bash (corrected, sorry if anyone tried this. will work now))

edit whatever to your hearts content. reboot. sorted.

(replace /dev/whatever with your correct device/partition)

Arch Linux

#1 2002-10-20 15:16:03

Kernel Panic: VFS Unable to ....

#2 2002-10-20 21:58:17

Re: Kernel Panic: VFS Unable to ....

#3 2002-10-21 14:30:50

Re: Kernel Panic: VFS Unable to ....

#4 2002-10-21 19:02:45

Re: Kernel Panic: VFS Unable to ....

#5 2002-11-09 22:54:05

Re: Kernel Panic: VFS Unable to ....

#6 2002-11-10 00:04:49

Re: Kernel Panic: VFS Unable to ....

#7 2002-11-10 19:35:24

Re: Kernel Panic: VFS Unable to ....

#8 2002-11-11 00:42:12

Re: Kernel Panic: VFS Unable to ....

#9 2002-11-11 21:54:48

Re: Kernel Panic: VFS Unable to ....

#10 2002-11-11 23:12:04

Re: Kernel Panic: VFS Unable to ....

#11 2002-11-11 23:16:14

Re: Kernel Panic: VFS Unable to ....

#12 2002-11-11 23:23:29

Re: Kernel Panic: VFS Unable to ....

#13 2002-11-12 04:00:59

Re: Kernel Panic: VFS Unable to ....

#14 2002-11-12 09:57:31

Re: Kernel Panic: VFS Unable to ....

Board footer