Lilo timestamp mismatch

lilsirecho · 2004-02-07 04:11:05

What is to be done with this to enable boot-up?

It occurs at the time for boot display of linux without the display...

dauphin · 2004-02-07 10:30:02

I believe it indicates that some of the files in the system appear newer than the current time (ie they bear a time or date which the system thinks is in the future and therefore cannot logically exist!)

That would suggest that your current system time is incorrect. If it is only a question of up to a few hours, you may find that by this morning everything works OK. If not, I would advise you to check and if necessary adjust the time clock in the BIOS. In fact, it would be advisable to do that anyway.

lilsirecho · 2004-02-07 16:58:46

The thought occured to me that the time was off and had discovered it to be so.

Reset the time in BIOS yesterday.

Reran the same setup again in two ways and received the same error signal.

I have attempted to boot arch in primary slot with a second arch drive in slave position. The lilo error occurs in either primary boot or slave boot.

I placed both in secondary IDE and repeated the test. Same result.

I move the slave arch to a pci-ide slot with the other as primary and tried reboot of primary. Same result.

It happens only with two arch drives regardless of their IDE slot.

Each drive boots when only one is installed in IDE.

It is 9:04 am right now and that is what is in BIOS.

Any ideas?

lilsirecho · 2004-02-07 18:08:24

athe thought occured to me that the whole series of failed internet and kmixer problems was the result of time error!!!!

dauphin · 2004-02-07 19:27:52

I am tempted to suggest that you install grub and get rid of lilo!

I assume you have run /sbin/lilo quite a few times in the course of all this? If not, I would try that.

Try advancing the BIOS clock to March 2004 just as an experiment?

I cannot really follow what configuration you have, what with these various disk changes! I should replace the drives in the position you would prefer and work from there. Is there just one instance of lilo (i.e in the MBR) or do you have a lilo on each root partition? Assuming the former, can you:
1. Post your lilo.conf after having replaced the drives where you want them and run /sbin/lilo
2. Set out the partitions on which you have installed Arch, including whether the entire filesystem is on a single partition in each case, or whether you have, for example, mounted /boot on a separate partition.
3. Say which of the Arch installations you are using to run lilo (that's the lilo.conf which will be relevant)

Do you need both the Arch installations or is this just experimentation? When you booted one without the other being attached did you have internet access?

lilsirecho · 2004-02-07 22:00:14

I cannot run both drives installed at the same time. The lilo error prevents the install of any drive.
I have run /sbin/lilo several times on each drive.

At present, the original arch drive is still without internet access, kmixer and does boot but shows no vmlinuz in /root/boot file. Don't have a clue as to where it is!

The new arch drive was booting and had internet access. I have yet to install correct XFree86Config. I was attempting to transfer the file from the original arch drive but ran into the lilo error.

The new arch drive booted many times before I changed the system time but now it refuses to boot..kernel panic..append a correct root boot...
etc.
I booted the new drive using the CD and entering vmlinuz =root /dev/discs/disc0/part3 and it now has no internet access. I was expecting to upgrade it to a different kernel to eliminate any possible conflict with the other drive. Can't upgrade it without internet. I think I may have to re-install.
One possibility open...boot on CD and chroot to fix lilo if that is defective. Tried to do this with :

#mount -t /dev/discs/disc0/part3 /mnt
#chroot /mnt
# nano -v /lilo.conf
Result: not allowed to edit the file in "View" mode.

Only thing different than the other drive's lilo is ;
label=arch versus label="arch" in old arch file

Don't think it would have booted if this entry is wrong in either of the drives.

Haven't a clue as to the source of the problem.

I made all the changes in the drive positions to eliminate the mobo from the possible causes for the difficulties.

dauphin · 2004-02-07 22:39:21

This is getting ever more complicated and the evening presses on here, so just a few thoughts:

Original drive: You have tried ls / and ls /boot and neither shows vmlinuz? I seem to recall you have /boot separately on /dev/hda1, so can you try mounting that partition manually just to prove that it is mounted when you do ls /boot ?

Each Arch installation seems to have its own lilo in the MBR of the disk upon which it resides and I wonder if this is causing a mixup at boot time when both are present. If you reinstall the new system I would be inclined to format the MBR on that disk, and boot the new system from the lilo in the MBR of the other disk (i.e. edit the /etc/lilo.conf in the original installation so as to provide for the new installation as an alternative boot). If and when you decide to move permanently to the new installation you will have to do the same in reverse.

I think the reason you don't have internet access on the new installation is that it is booting off the kernel on the CD and the correct modules are not present.

I would have thought your chroot to edit lilo.conf should work, but to write to that file you would need to do: nano -w /etc/lilo.conf

Hope this gives you some ideas to be getting along with!

lilsirecho · 2004-02-07 23:00:27

Some of the details are a bit murky but will examine the possibilities you suggest.

As to the use of Grub. As I understand it grub utilizes ram in the boot process and that the use of video is thereby compromised due to ram use by both. So I stay with lilo.

I expect that your suggestion that the CD boot doesn't load the modules needed for internet access is probably correct.

I utilized the nano edit to correct the lilo difference with ..label="arch".. but it didn't solve the boot problem.

The fail message in kernel panic refers to 343, 03:43

lilsirecho · 2004-02-08 09:04:09

Dauphin;
Re-installed CD arch 0.5 in 120gb drive which had no internet access.
Was successful in obtaining internet access and began the upgrade process.
Ran ..pacman -Sy pacamn
Ran ..pacman -Rd xfree86
Ran ..pacman -Sy xfree86
Ran ..pacman -Syu

Result: it didn't install the packages, I lost internet access at the end of the download process and lost the ping command . This is what happened when I did ...Pacman -Syu...the last time on the original arch 80gb drive(except I get the ping command but no access with it).

Looks like I have to try again.

Examined pacman -Q and found the original kernel therein.

Executed Pacman -U /var/cache/pacman/pkg/kernel-2.4.24-1.pkg.tar.gz to enter the kernel into the system.

Examined pacman -Q |less and found the new kernel installed. Checks on other pkgs indicated they werenot installed.
No change in the internet access after the kernel install and no ping command indicated.
The evidence indicates the pkgs were not installed by pacman -Syu!

Xentac · 2004-02-08 09:26:36

pacman -S iputils

dauphin · 2004-02-08 11:19:10

Lilsirecho -

As to the use of Grub. As I understand it grub utilizes ram in the boot process and that the use of video is thereby compromised due to ram use by both. So I stay with lilo.

I had not heard this before and have been unable to find a reference to it. If you have a source you could point me to I'd be interested.

lilsirecho · 2004-02-08 17:31:13

Thanks gents:

The last activity when downloading pacman -Syu was a listing of scrollkeeper statements. The whole picture is deja vu (see pacman forum for the first instance)

As to the grub reference, I will research and find a reference for the details I mentioned.

I will perform the pacman -S iputils but do not expect to perform pacman -S for the hundreds of packages not yet installed.

I will need to use pacman -Sf scrollkeeper again I surmise and plan to try pacman -Syu again after getting internet restored.

I saw references to coreutils and modutils fly by at the end of the download...think it said remove...

Is this procedure the norm?

lilsirecho · 2004-02-08 17:38:02

Pacman -S iputils restored ping cmd but network is dead.

Xentac · 2004-02-08 18:20:49

pacman -S module-init-tools

There are certain packages that need installing by hand for one reason or another. Once they are in everything else is fine.

lilsirecho · 2004-02-08 18:39:26

Conflict with /etc/modules.conf when trying pacman -S module-init-tools!

I am taking off for a time........

lilsirecho · 2004-02-09 01:48:24

I tried pacman -Sf scrollkeeper
I tried pacman -Sf module-init-tools

Lost pacman command along the way..

I can see I have to re-load but I need to know what to expect along the way when upgrading because I fear it requires doing things in the right order.
Am I supposed to answer Yes to all the queries at the beginning of upgrade?
Why do I have scrollkeeper fouled up on upgrade?

Which pkg is manually ordered installed in what order of pkg list?

Why do I lose internet at the end of download? It has happened every time and it causes more grief and labor than I feel is justified because I have to boot up in windows(stable) to obtain help.
Why wasn't the new kernel installed with pacman -Syu? Why wasn't the latest pkg of mplayer installed? I claim none of the packages were installed.....Why??????????????
I am afraid to use upgrade in Windows because I have seen it ruin things. The same has happened in arch............more than once!

Please answer the questions so I can do the upgrade correctly

Xentac · 2004-02-09 01:56:18

If you do an ftp install you'll get the newest versions of packages without any of these problems.

lilsirecho · 2004-02-09 02:44:49

What is the difference between a duck?

What happened when the croc swallowed the alarm clock?

It got ticked off!

Pacman -Syu comes from ftp sources does it not?

What is required to use ftp? Identify every program by name and number , know which are required (dependencies?) and know what each program does for you??

I installed with arch 0.5 CD generated from iso download. In order to upgrade the arch 0.5 to latest config requires hours of download and install time even though the CD was generated in October 2003 only a few months ago.

If I try to utilize my first arch drive to load pkg material into the second arch drive, lilo timestamp error occurs. No where in googling are there any references to lilo timestamp. I have employed slackware, debian, windows,and arch at the same time in my machine with no timestamp errors...all use lilo(except windows). Only with arch do I run into lilo timestamp...if I try to use two arch drives in my machine. I have used two slackware drives simultaneously along with arch as well.

In the vanilla arch 0.5 install using the CD's lilo setup, where does lilo install: in the MBR or in the boot partition someplace? The distro doesn't define where it goes....
Why does the use of two arch distro drives with lilo boot cause lilo timestamp error?
Is there a way to restore my systems pacman command?

dauphin · 2004-02-09 10:55:25

I've just tested a fresh ISO install (from a fairly old disc like yours) in parallel to my existing one and updated it to see what would happen and it worked fine here. So I will reproduce the steps I took:

1. Booted from ISO CD and installed base system (all base packages)
2. Installed IDE kernel
3. Edited configuration files as necessary, but not lilo.conf as I would not be using it.
4. Did NOT install any new bootloader
5. Rebooted into new system using existing grub
6. mkdir /mnt/arch
7. mount -t ext3 /dev/discs/disc0/part? /mnt/arch
[to mount my original Arch installation at /mnt/arch]
8. cp -R /mnt/arch/var/cache/pacman/pkg /var/cache/pacman
[to copy over all my cached downloads]
9. cp /mnt/arch/etc/pacman.conf /etc
10. pacman -Sy pacman
11. pacman -S nano
12. nano -w /etc/pacman.conf
[to edit pacman.conf, eg: IgnorePkg = lilo]
13. pacman -Su
14. Said yes to all pacman's upgrade questions. Hardly anything had to be downloaded as it was nearly all in cache.
15. pacman -S xfree86, etc, etc, adding all the packages required; again mostly used the downloads held in cache.

As I say, I had no problems with this and internet access worked fine at the end of it. I feel your problems are being caused by your having 2 instances of lilo and probably also both discs are being designated as bootable so your system is fatally confused. I recommend that you start by running /sbin/lilo from your original Arch installation just to make sure that this is the version used in the MBR. Then do your fresh install on another partition as described above, but DO NOT install a bootloader. When you have finished the new install, go back to your original installation and edit /etc/lilo.conf to add the new installation as an alternative. Obviously give it a different label such as Arch2. Run /sbin/lilo again to write the revised configuration to MBR. When you reboot, lilo should give you the option of which installation to boot into.

In reply to your question re: where lilo installs to - this is determined by how you edit /etc/lilo.conf. There is a line at the top which reads as default: boot=/dev/discs/disc0/disc If you don't change that and if you install lilo as the bootloader, lilo will install to the MBR. If you want lilo installed elsewhere (eg to the root partition of your new installation) you change the final "disc" in that line to "part?" (? being the partition number you want to use) - of course if it's not on disc0 you have to change that too.

The whole reinstallation only took me about 30 minutes (quicker than I could type out what I did ) so I would suggest you start the new installation again following these steps. I can't see why it shouldn't work for you too!

dauphin · 2004-02-09 11:30:57

One further thought: When you did the new installation of Arch I am not sure how your discs were configured, but I suspect you have lilo installed in the MBR of that disc. As this will not be touched by the installation guidelines I have just given you, your system may still be confused. So I think you should first of all format the MBR on THAT disk (not on the disk containing your original Arch installation.) Have that disk alone attached when you do this. If you have a Windows boot disk just boot to the A: prompt and do fdisk mbr (as far as I recall - sorry, I know there is a way in Linux but haven't yet done it myself)

(I am assuming you boot Windows from the lilo installation on the other disc - if not, please give more details as we don't want to end up with you unable to get into Windows - at least until you have Arch up and running again! )

Actually, this is one of the things I suggested the other day and you might even find it is enough to get everything working without doing the new install again, though perhaps it would be cleanest to start over again.

lilsirecho · 2004-02-09 17:22:52

Dauphin;
I appreciate the effort you have put forth in establishing a work-around for the problems I present.

I have re-installed the arch in the new drive (120GB Maxtor) and it has internet access.

As to the problem of lilo timestamp, it seems you are on the right track.
I am wondering if I can change the lilo on this new drive to arch2 without problems? That should eliminate the confusion that seems to pop-up when trying to boot one drive of two which have identical labels in lilo.

My windows drive is separate drive not dual booted.

I intend to only upgrade selected packages in the future to avoid the loss of internet access in -Syu.
If I can change arch in the new drive to arch2, let me know right off!

dauphin · 2004-02-09 18:13:30

So your new Arch is booting from the lilo it installed in the MBR of the Maxtor disk?

Sure, in that case, you can edit its /etc/lilo.conf to change the default and the label to Arch2 (just make sure they match ) But then you will probably want an extra entry in there to boot your original Arch (you could call that one Arch or Arch1 or whatever you like)

However, I still think this will likely not overcome what I see as a conflict arising out of having lilo in the MBR of both the disks. I think you may have to fdisk the MBR in the other disk if you do it this way. But again make sure Windows does not boot from that MBR; I don't want to feel responsible if you lose access to Windows :shock:

I understand how you have lost confidence in doing a pacman -Syu, but I do feel you should get this resolved now, otherwise your base system will become out of date as time goes by. It is better to deal with this issue now, before you build up a lot of data on the new installation, so that if for any reason pacman -Syu goes wrong again you will not suffer too much. I believe you will not have a problem with pacman once you have sorted out this lilo problem and reached the point where lilo can boot either of your installations with both drives attached. I agree that if you try a full pacman update in the meantime you will probably run into the same problens again, but once the lilo issue has been fixed you should take a deep breath and go for the pacman -Syu just to prove it works!

lilsirecho · 2004-02-09 19:10:48

Dauphin;

Changed the 120GB drive to arch2 and it still results in a lilo timestamp error if the other drive is installed.

I haven't had trouble with this error for months until just recently. I have had MBR in lilo on every drive except windows.

I suspect a problem in the mobo, maybe a BIOS error.

Perhaps I don't understand the MBR system????

I select the drive to boot on in bios and it must boot on that MBR in the drive selected...right?

dauphin · 2004-02-09 20:10:37

Well I did say that I doubted if just changing the name to Arch2 would help.
I'm finding it impossible at this distance to form a clear understanding of your setup. I hadn't realised, for example, that you are switching between drives in the BIOS - that is just another layer of complexity!
All I can advise you is to simplify. Settle on one fixed configuration for your disk drives; ie one is master on IDE1, another is slave on IDE1, another might be master on IDE2. Then, using a Linux installation you plan to keep, install lilo (or grub) to the MBR of the disc which is master on IDE1 and make sure there are no more instances of lilo on the MBRs of other drives. Finally, edit the lilo.conf in the Linux installation which set up this lilo installation so that it is capable of booting all your operating systems, Arch1, Arch2, Slackware, Windows, and anything else you might have there.
Then you never have to switch around drives in the BIOS; when you start the PC, lilo pops up and offers you the choice of which OS to boot. And when you install another OS at a future time, don't let it install a bootloader, but instead edit your existing lilo.conf to include it as a boot option.
This is the way I multi-boot my machine, except I use grub and not lilo, and as far as I am aware it is the standard way of doing it.

lilsirecho · 2004-02-09 20:50:30

I understand the multi-boot system you describe.

I had a setup wherein I could boot on any of several drives and also use kde disc-free to enable windows access or other linux access for read and write.

Since my recent troubles, I have yet to restore an arch drive to enable kde disc-free.

At present, the 120GB drive is booting but setting up XF86Config has me buffaloed. It says : Radeon(0) Virtual height (0) is too small for the hardware (min 128).....in the error when startx.

I do not know where the Virtual Height entry appears in XF86Config?
I cannot find such an entry.

Arch Linux

#1 2004-02-07 04:11:05

Lilo timestamp mismatch

#2 2004-02-07 10:30:02

Re: Lilo timestamp mismatch

#3 2004-02-07 16:58:46

Re: Lilo timestamp mismatch

#4 2004-02-07 18:08:24

Re: Lilo timestamp mismatch

#5 2004-02-07 19:27:52

Re: Lilo timestamp mismatch

#6 2004-02-07 22:00:14

Re: Lilo timestamp mismatch

#7 2004-02-07 22:39:21

Re: Lilo timestamp mismatch

#8 2004-02-07 23:00:27

Re: Lilo timestamp mismatch

#9 2004-02-08 09:04:09

Re: Lilo timestamp mismatch

#10 2004-02-08 09:26:36

Re: Lilo timestamp mismatch

#11 2004-02-08 11:19:10

Re: Lilo timestamp mismatch

#12 2004-02-08 17:31:13

Re: Lilo timestamp mismatch

#13 2004-02-08 17:38:02

Re: Lilo timestamp mismatch

#14 2004-02-08 18:20:49

Re: Lilo timestamp mismatch

#15 2004-02-08 18:39:26

Re: Lilo timestamp mismatch

#16 2004-02-09 01:48:24

Re: Lilo timestamp mismatch

#17 2004-02-09 01:56:18

Re: Lilo timestamp mismatch

#18 2004-02-09 02:44:49

Re: Lilo timestamp mismatch

#19 2004-02-09 10:55:25

Re: Lilo timestamp mismatch

#20 2004-02-09 11:30:57

Re: Lilo timestamp mismatch

#21 2004-02-09 17:22:52

Re: Lilo timestamp mismatch

#22 2004-02-09 18:13:30

Re: Lilo timestamp mismatch

#23 2004-02-09 19:10:48

Re: Lilo timestamp mismatch

#24 2004-02-09 20:10:37

Re: Lilo timestamp mismatch

#25 2004-02-09 20:50:30

Re: Lilo timestamp mismatch

Board footer