PDA

View Full Version : [SOLVED] 10.04 fails again!



joey00
April 11th, 2011, 11:59 PM
I recently tried to upgrade a Hardy setup to Lucid 10.04. One of the main reasons for this upgrade was the very slow start-up of ubuntu running 8.04.

Owing to previous major problems with this upgrade on other hardware, I decided to do a clean install. This proved considerably worse! I failed to obtain a working system on 5 separate tries. I used several 10.04 disks and methods, but the same result.

When the install is completed, I rebooted and the following:

There is a flashing cursor top left which lasts for several minutes (maybe too long).
Then the following text is displayed:

Gave up waiting for root device. Common problems
- Boot rgs (cat /procs/cmdline)
- Check root delay = (did the system xxxxxx
- Check root = (did the system wait for righ xxxxx
- Missing modules (cat /proc/modules; ls /dev)

ALERT! /dev/disk/by-uuid/4b3xxfilenamexx does not exist. Dropping to ashell

Busybox v 1.13.3

etc.

I then gave the command: ls /dev/disk/by-uuid/4b3xxfilenamexx and received no listing
So I cd'd to the directory /dev/disk/by-uuid/ and found that the file 4b3xxfilenamexx was present. So why did the system not find it?

Hardware: AMIBIOS v 08.00.09 Build 05/04/05
Processor AMD Sempron 2800+
Motherboard: AsusTek K8N
Chipset nVidia nForce3
HDD Maxtor 6L250R0 (EIDE)

I wondered if the RAID capability of the Motherboard
or something to do with SATA drivers might be playing a part.

eisenwyrm
April 12th, 2011, 12:23 AM
Have you done a MD5 SUM check of your installation file? Downloading the Ubuntu 10.x ISO via torrent is the best way to prevent corruption. Then use k3b to burn the image to disk, k3b rechecks the md5 before burning and then again after if you preselect "verify burn".

I had several Ubuntu 9.x-10.x installation disks with errors before I used this method.

Avoid using Brasero to burn disk images, most times it will corrupt them.
I find it only good for music and images.

joey00
April 12th, 2011, 01:15 AM
I used k3b for burn. I checked the disks by self-test before use. I used several different disks, Alternate and Desktop. Never the same one twice.

Does not the self-test employ some sort of CRC?

mrgs
April 12th, 2011, 01:26 AM
What about 10.10 and 11.04 (beta)?

tkoco
April 12th, 2011, 01:40 AM
I used k3b for burn. I checked the disks by self-test before use. I used several different disks, Alternate and Desktop. Never the same one twice.

Does not the self-test employ some sort of CRC?

Just a suggestion, try different media. I have seen media go bad (too old, got too warm, incompatable with burner, etc.)

Dutch70
April 12th, 2011, 03:10 AM
Also, if you have a usb stick. It's faster, easier and cheaper. That may help if/when you try 10.10 or 11.04.

Did you ever select "Try Ubuntu" to see if you could run it from the live cd before attempting the install?
The reason I ask is... I suggest you open disk utility and check the SMART data on your hdd.

ronparent
April 12th, 2011, 04:07 PM
Just a quick note in reference to your motherboard. I run 2 MB's of that vintage - one an Asus. They both require a 'nolapic' boot parameter to boot.

Your best bet is to get the live cd up and running. You can test if you need boot parameters before you install. Of course you will have to permanently add any needed parameters to the boot line after install (modify /etc/default/grub to add the boot parameter for grub 2).

On a final note: you have only one disk so you are not now employing a raid. Unless you had at one point turned raid on in bios it should not now affect you.

joey00
April 12th, 2011, 10:46 PM
I was trying to get an LTS version.
8.04 was ok apart from the very slow start.
A beta doesnt tempt me. I am not experimenting, I just want a working system by the shortest route.
Does anyhone have a clue what is happening? The install CDs work fine on other hardware.

Dutch70
April 12th, 2011, 11:23 PM
8.04 LTS was fine, but slow??? What good is a long term support version if the support ends in about 2 weeks? ;)

Also, 11.04 will not be beta any longer in about 2 weeks. It will be officially released on April 28th.

I would try the suggestion by ron and also check here...
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1613132 (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1613132)

eisenwyrm
April 13th, 2011, 02:18 AM
You installation disk(s) work fine in other hard ware?

Can you swap hard drives? If you can swap - install - and re-swap

Unlike MSWindows, you can swap hard drives in Linux, tho some drivers may need to be exchanged.

mrgs
April 13th, 2011, 04:13 AM
A beta doesnt tempt me. I am not experimenting, I just want a working system by the shortest route.


No matter if 11.04 is called 'beta' or not, it could be rock-solid on your system from today, or it could be buggy for the next several month on your system.

You don't know before trying.

mrgs
April 13th, 2011, 04:26 AM
Also, as ronparent writes, you might need boot options

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/LiveCDBootOptions
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1613132

joey00
April 16th, 2011, 04:03 PM
8.04 LTS was fine, but slow??? What good is a long term support version if the support ends in about 2 weeks? ;)

Also, 11.04 will not be beta any longer in about 2 weeks. It will be officially released on April 28th.

I would try the suggestion by ron and also check here...
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1613132 (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1613132)

The 8.04 was fine for a year or two. That is what LTS is good for! :-P

I will try 11.04, it is better than nothing - if it works!

I will check out the link too.

Thx for your help!

joey00
April 16th, 2011, 04:07 PM
No matter if 11.04 is called 'beta' or not, it could be rock-solid on your system from today, or it could be buggy for the next several month on your system.

You don't know before trying.

True, I suppose. But without LTS, it will involve more installations soon.

Dutch70
April 16th, 2011, 04:12 PM
Only 6 mths sooner at this point & if you have a separate /home, fresh installs are not a big deal at all.
If you don't, now would be a good time to create one.

joey00
April 17th, 2011, 12:05 PM
Only 6 mths sooner at this point & if you have a separate /home, fresh installs are not a big deal at all.
If you don't, now would be a good time to create one.

Agreed entirely. On the second point, anyhow.

Anything to do with 10.04 doesn't fill me with happiness. A few installs went ok on old machines, but the more recent ones seem to choke on it!

joey00
April 19th, 2011, 11:48 AM
Well, I just tried 10.10.

The result is exactly the same. :sad:

Everything looks like a normal install, but when it come to the initial (after reboot) startup, the screen says exactly the same as my first post.

I also tried nolapic. Again no difference.

Can anyone explain the error message, maybe?

I will try 11.04 later today, in the slight hope it might do something different.

The disk change option is noted, but it is a hassle I will not attempt until I exhaust other options. The extra manual changes to deal with different hardware are not encouraging.

I am also beginning to wonder what will happen if I install Mint or Debian.

On the question of faulty media, I have repeatedly checked all disks used (internal check) and used at least 6 different disks. So my feeling is that this direction is invalid. But would someone please confirm that the internal check is good enough for the CDs.

On a separate aside, it is interesting to note the overall opinion that there should be an /home partition, when the "auto" setup puts everything into /.

alterpinguin
April 19th, 2011, 12:04 PM
Have you ever tried a
cold-boot
after install?
-
Or did you only do the install-procedure including the following
warm-boot and look embarassed at the not booting computer-screen?
-
With ubuntu-10.04
there were differnt changes, that did show problems with some
mainboard/graka hardware and bios-settings.
-
If you can run the ubuntu-10.04 live-cd-version (maybe from usb)
without problems - test it, including a user-space and the shutdown
and reboot and check that your saved user-data is really available!
- if you can run the live-cd without problems
you have to try the different boot-options with the kernel.
And you have to do a cold-boot. Thats a real power-off of your
computer for some seconds to make it really without any power.
-
For different boot-options, check the forum there are a lot.
I had to disable partly or full the apm for some mainboards
and use nomodeset like this:
apm=power-off nomodeset
-
there are other apm options too, if you have an amd-mainboard,
you might even try to disable the cool+quit-bios option and try
to get a hint what is the problem.
-
ps. for example, i have one mainboard with "faulty bios" that still refuses to boot by keyboard-press, while another mainboard (a bit different, but same chipset) has no problems at that point.

joey00
April 19th, 2011, 03:39 PM
ADDENDUM

I thought I had described things adequately. But maybe one point is not clear. On reboot, Grib2 starts normally. On selection of the ubuntu option, the error screen described comes.

I also tried the recovery mode.
Aside from screen after screen about slow this and that and injunctions to be patient, there was:
SATA link down.

Maybe that means something? (would be certainly consistent with unable to find file).

joey00
April 19th, 2011, 03:46 PM
Have you ever tried a
cold-boot
after install?
-
Or did you only do the install-procedure including the following
warm-boot and look embarassed at the not booting computer-screen?
-
With ubuntu-10.04
there were differnt changes, that did show problems with some
mainboard/graka hardware and bios-settings.
-
If you can run the ubuntu-10.04 live-cd-version (maybe from usb)
without problems - test it, including a user-space and the shutdown
and reboot and check that your saved user-data is really available!
- if you can run the live-cd without problems
you have to try the different boot-options with the kernel.
And you have to do a cold-boot. Thats a real power-off of your
computer for some seconds to make it really without any power.
-
For different boot-options, check the forum there are a lot.
I had to disable partly or full the apm for some mainboards
and use nomodeset like this:
apm=power-off nomodeset
-
there are other apm options too, if you have an amd-mainboard,
you might even try to disable the cool+quit-bios option and try
to get a hint what is the problem.
-
ps. for example, i have one mainboard with "faulty bios" that still refuses to boot by keyboard-press, while another mainboard (a bit different, but same chipset) has no problems at that point.

I tried cold boot. And BIOS changed boot options. I also tried edd. And reset of BIOS to defaults...

I tried everything which seemed to have a bearing on the problem. I can try apm=power-off nomodeset, but with this I am getting into unknown territory...

eisenwyrm
April 20th, 2011, 05:25 AM
ADDENDUM
Aside from screen after screen about slow this and that and injunctions to be patient, there was:
SATA link down.

Maybe that means something? (would be certainly consistent with unable to find file).

A shot in the dark here, but that does sound like a driver issue.
I'm not that knowlegable.

Anyone? :confused:

eisenwyrm
April 20th, 2011, 05:26 AM
How old is your system, btw?

nvm

If you are using sata, your hardware shouldn't be old enough to be "legacy"... I think...


I'm tired and don't think I'm really helping helping in this thread.

~collecting beans, ha.

mrgs
April 20th, 2011, 06:30 AM
I guess best is to ignore the last two posts...

Has RAID ever been used on the machine?
In BIOS, have you disabled everything regarding floppy disks, if possible?
Did you try 11.04?
Did you install having wired internet access?

joey00
April 20th, 2011, 12:45 PM
I guess best is to ignore the last two posts...

Has RAID ever been used on the machine?
In BIOS, have you disabled everything regarding floppy disks, if possible?
Did you try 11.04?
Did you install having wired internet access?
RAID was never *used* on this system, although I have played with BIOS settings to see what's there. A long time back I remember there was a SATA issue on the previous install (8.04), but it was a dual boot at that time. But don't remember the detail.

I had the feeling it was driver. But its only because of the disk issue.

Wired access, yes.

FDD off I think, but will check that it is disabled AFA possible.

I just tried 11.04
The result is quite different from 10.
I no longer get the Warning message, I think; but a marvellous 2-tone screen - black on black!

I will try more boot switches.

Am I right in thinking that the boot switches need to be added manually after the setup?

joey00
April 20th, 2011, 01:38 PM
11.04 Installation

I rebooted the 11.04 installation and observed the following. (no longer a black screen)

The boot was faster than hitherto.

When the grub2 screen showed I had the usual choices including the recovery mode option.

The type size was very small indicating a very high resolution.

On selecting the Ubuntu option, I had the following:

Busybox v 1.17.1... shell (ash)
Enter 'help' for list of commands.

(initramfs)


There was no other warning as per previous installs.

One other thing, someone asked about shutdown after installation. In more than one case there was a long list of errors after removing the CD and pressing Enter.

I have had this before on other installs (prior to 10), on random machines, my experience says to ignore it, since after the cold boot everything runs OK, and the errors do not show up again.

mrgs
April 20th, 2011, 10:52 PM
The error messages at the end of the install are not important. As you mentioned, they do not show up again.

I assume that you have added all updates to 11.04.

Well, I am running low on good ideas. As a last desperate attempt you could try Killdisk as described in
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1580857

joey00
May 2nd, 2011, 05:36 PM
The error messages at the end of the install are not important. As you mentioned, they do not show up again.

I assume that you have added all updates to 11.04.

Well, I am running low on good ideas. As a last desperate attempt you could try Killdisk as described in
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1580857

Guys, Thx for your suggestions. I tried everything I could with no better results.

I decided to give up and go to Mint 10.

Mint is now installed and running smoothly - first time! :-)

I didn't like the idea of moving sideways, but I felt I was just pouring time down a bottomless pit...

Thx again,

Joey

Dutch70
May 2nd, 2011, 06:12 PM
Very odd that Linux Mint-10 worked since it's based on Ubuntu & uses Maverick's repositories.

joey00
May 4th, 2011, 04:18 PM
Very odd that Linux Mint-10 worked since it's based on Ubuntu & uses Maverick's repositories.

Dutch70:
I found this surprising too, for the same reasons! But it worked first time with no problems.

I suspect that the newer versions of Ubuntu are discarding drivers for older hardware as they strive for an all singing, all dancing product... Maybe Mint did not yet discard the critical driver.

I did not check which Ubuntu Mint 10 is based upon, but maybe it is earlier than 10.04. If so, then the driver could still be present in that version.

Only guessing. But I am open to other explanations.

Dutch70
May 4th, 2011, 04:45 PM
Mint-9 Isadora is based on Lucid Lynx.
Mint-10 Julia is based on Maverick. (Julia is what I was on when I made my last post)
It could have been anything...who knows?
I think Linux Mint should be adopted into the buntu family & should be called Mintbuntu. :P
Of course, they would probably call it Mubuntu...lol.

Mint 9 Isodora
deb http://packages.linuxmint.com/ isadora main upstream import
deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ lucid main restricted universe multiverse
deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ lucid-updates main restricted universe multiverse
deb http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ lucid-security main restricted universe multiverse
deb http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu/ lucid partner
deb http://packages.medibuntu.org/ lucid free non-free

#deb http://archive.getdeb.net/ubuntu lucid-getdeb apps
#deb http://archive.getdeb.net/ubuntu lucid-getdeb games


Mint 10 Julia
deb http://packages.linuxmint.com/ julia main upstream import
deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ maverick main restricted universe multiverse
deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ maverick-updates main restricted universe multiverse
deb http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ maverick-security main restricted universe multiverse
deb http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu/ maverick partner
deb http://packages.medibuntu.org/ maverick free non-free

#deb http://archive.getdeb.net/ubuntu maverick-getdeb apps
#deb http://archive.getdeb.net/ubuntu maverick-getdeb games

Via Mint Forums (http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=151&t=64579)

mrgs
May 4th, 2011, 05:58 PM
I suspect that the newer versions of Ubuntu are discarding drivers for older hardware

No. In Linux, drivers are in the kernel and hence common to all distros.

joey00
May 6th, 2011, 02:38 PM
No. In Linux, drivers are in the kernel and hence common to all distros.

Then I am out of ideas!

I tried every combination of Ubuntu 10.04 onwards. I tried several CDs, etc. etc. And everything ended at the same point (roughly).

Can you pls. confirm that the disk integrity check on the CDs is a good CRC test?

My trying Mint was a last desparate fling before really moving to another distribution altogether... I was astonished when it went in without a hitch!

mrgs
May 6th, 2011, 03:43 PM
One of the differences between Ubuntu and Mint is that the latter has more closed-source drivers installed as standard. That could explain.