Arch Linux

georgia_tech_swagger

Member

From: Upstate, SC

Registered: 2008-07-02

Posts: 138

Website

Can anybody confirm this rather serious bug?

Steps:
- Use Arch 2008.06 Install Disc
--- (I used 32-bit)
- Install Arch, but use HTTP/FTP for source
- No matter what you format / as (I tried ReiserFS and XFS), upon reboot you'll get a fsck error and it goes into maint. mode

Updates:
- I tried to use CDROM as source, same result.

Last edited by georgia_tech_swagger (2008-11-22 19:51:14)

---

Res Publica Non Dominetur

Laptop:  Arch x86 | Thinkpad X220 | Core i5 2410-M | 8 GB DDR3 | Sandy Bridge
Desktop:  Arch x86_64 | Custom | Core i7 920 | 6 GB DDR3 | GeForce 260 GTX

googlah

Member

From: Sweden

Registered: 2008-11-21

Posts: 14

Re: Can anybody confirm this rather serious bug?

Hm, I've just done that, and I selected to automatically format the disk, using ReiserFS. But that should be the same, I guess? And it worked with no issues. Can't say why fsck coming up for you, though.

klixon

Member

From: Nederland

Registered: 2007-01-17

Posts: 525

Re: Can anybody confirm this rather serious bug?

Are you sure the filesystem type specified in /etc/fstab is correct?
Sounds like that's where the problem hides...

---

Stand back, intruder, or i'll blast you out of space! I am Klixon and I don't want any dealings with you human lifeforms. I'm a cyborg!

georgia_tech_swagger

Member

From: Upstate, SC

Registered: 2008-07-02

Posts: 138

Website

Re: Can anybody confirm this rather serious bug?

Are you sure the filesystem type specified in /etc/fstab is correct?
Sounds like that's where the problem hides...

Yep.  Installer built fstab just fine.

---

Res Publica Non Dominetur

Laptop:  Arch x86 | Thinkpad X220 | Core i5 2410-M | 8 GB DDR3 | Sandy Bridge
Desktop:  Arch x86_64 | Custom | Core i7 920 | 6 GB DDR3 | GeForce 260 GTX

georgia_tech_swagger

Member

From: Upstate, SC

Registered: 2008-07-02

Posts: 138

Website

Re: Can anybody confirm this rather serious bug?

I'll try downloading the ISO and reburning.   Maybe the CD went bad.

---

Res Publica Non Dominetur

Laptop:  Arch x86 | Thinkpad X220 | Core i5 2410-M | 8 GB DDR3 | Sandy Bridge
Desktop:  Arch x86_64 | Custom | Core i7 920 | 6 GB DDR3 | GeForce 260 GTX

georgia_tech_swagger

Member

From: Upstate, SC

Registered: 2008-07-02

Posts: 138

Website

Re: Can anybody confirm this rather serious bug?

Same result.     Fallback doesn't help either.

EDIT:   I think it may be forcing the fsck based on the journal/supernode having a timestamp in the future.   Will try to correct ... but why does fsck fail??

Last edited by georgia_tech_swagger (2008-11-22 22:07:20)

---

Res Publica Non Dominetur

Laptop:  Arch x86 | Thinkpad X220 | Core i5 2410-M | 8 GB DDR3 | Sandy Bridge
Desktop:  Arch x86_64 | Custom | Core i7 920 | 6 GB DDR3 | GeForce 260 GTX

georgia_tech_swagger

Member

From: Upstate, SC

Registered: 2008-07-02

Posts: 138

Website

Re: Can anybody confirm this rather serious bug?

:: Checking Filesystems [BUSY]
/sbin/fsck.xfs:  XFS file system
/dev/sdc1:  clean, 30/28112 files, 13409/112420 blocks
/dev/sdb1:  Reiserfs super block in block 16 on /dev/sdb1 of format 3.6 with standard journal
/dev/sda2:  Reiserfs super block in block 16 on /dev/sda2 of format 3.6 with standard journal
Blocks (total/free):  25601568/9553276 by 4096 bytes
Filesystem is clean
Blocks (total/free):  60924496/9768850 by 4096 bytes
Filesystem is clean

(lag)

                                     [FAIL]

FILESYSTEM CHECK FAILED

Please repair manually and reboot.  Note that the root file system is currently mounted read-only.   To remount it read-write type:  mount -n -o remount,rw /
When you exit the maintenance shell the system reboot automatically.

Give root password for maintenance
(or type Control-D to continue):

---

Res Publica Non Dominetur

Laptop:  Arch x86 | Thinkpad X220 | Core i5 2410-M | 8 GB DDR3 | Sandy Bridge
Desktop:  Arch x86_64 | Custom | Core i7 920 | 6 GB DDR3 | GeForce 260 GTX

georgia_tech_swagger

Member

From: Upstate, SC

Registered: 2008-07-02

Posts: 138

Website

Re: Can anybody confirm this rather serious bug?

Bingo.   I commented out my external USB hard drive in /etc/fstab .... now it goes just fine.   Unreal.   WTF?

---

Res Publica Non Dominetur

Laptop:  Arch x86 | Thinkpad X220 | Core i5 2410-M | 8 GB DDR3 | Sandy Bridge
Desktop:  Arch x86_64 | Custom | Core i7 920 | 6 GB DDR3 | GeForce 260 GTX

rok3

Member

From: NJ, USA

Registered: 2008-03-09

Posts: 44

Re: Can anybody confirm this rather serious bug?

What was the file system used on the external drive?

phrakture

Arch Overlord

From: behind you

Registered: 2003-10-29

Posts: 7,879

Website

Re: Can anybody confirm this rather serious bug?

The order of drives is not ensured. sda, sdb, sdc may be totally different drives next reboot. It is best to use UUIDs in cases like this

---

http://phraktured.net

Zibi1981

Member

From: Poland

Registered: 2008-01-31

Posts: 703

Re: Can anybody confirm this rather serious bug?

Concerning UUIDs, how to check i.e. what's the UUID of a partition/disk? During installation /etc/fstab is generated automatically, but after that I don't know where to find those IDs in the system when I need to connect additional drive.

---

"... being a Linux user is sort of like living in a house inhabited by a large family of carpenters and architects. Every morning when you wake up, the house is a little different. Maybe there is a new turret, or some walls have moved. Or perhaps someone has temporarily removed the floor under your bed."

MSI Raider GE78HX 13VI-032PL

SamC

Member

From: Calgary

Registered: 2008-05-13

Posts: 611

Website

Re: Can anybody confirm this rather serious bug?

You can use "ls -l /dev/disk/by-uuid", which should show the symlinks.

georgia_tech_swagger

Member

From: Upstate, SC

Registered: 2008-07-02

Posts: 138

Website

Re: Can anybody confirm this rather serious bug?

I was using UUID on all partitions in /etc/fstab.

FS on the external was ReiserFS.   After I booted once with it commented out, then manually mounted it, then rebooted with it not commented out .... it worked.   Although there is a huge lag during "checking filesystems" at boot.    A good 5-7 seconds.   

I intend to migrate all data to my new 1 TB XFS disc, then reformat all my secondary drives as XFS.     I know ReiserFS is terribly slow to mount, and I think that combined with "time to settle" for a USB device could be causing timeouts.

---

Res Publica Non Dominetur

Laptop:  Arch x86 | Thinkpad X220 | Core i5 2410-M | 8 GB DDR3 | Sandy Bridge
Desktop:  Arch x86_64 | Custom | Core i7 920 | 6 GB DDR3 | GeForce 260 GTX

Gullible Jones

Member

Registered: 2004-12-29

Posts: 4,863

Re: Can anybody confirm this rather serious bug?

ReiserFS shouldn't be slow to mount any more, the fix for that got integrated into the mainline kernel...

Dieter@be

Forum Fellow

From: Belgium

Registered: 2006-11-05

Posts: 2,001

Website

Re: Can anybody confirm this rather serious bug?

The problem is the date/time is not correct when you're in the live environment of the installCD.  I had this too.

Looks dangerous but I think it's harmless.

Last edited by Dieter@be (2008-11-24 09:40:42)

---

< Daenyth> and he works prolifically
4 8 15 16 23 42

moljac024

Member

From: Serbia

Registered: 2008-01-29

Posts: 2,676

Re: Can anybody confirm this rather serious bug?

The order of drives is not ensured. sda, sdb, sdc may be totally different drives next reboot. It is best to use UUIDs in cases like this

UUIDs can change as well. I'm more for drive labels

Last edited by moljac024 (2008-11-24 14:13:03)

---

The day Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck, is the day they make a vacuum cleaner.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But if they tell you that I've lost my mind, maybe it's not gone just a little hard to find...