kernel-core-3.18.9-200.fc21.x86_64 fails to boot

2015-03-15 Thread Patrick O'Callaghan
Installed the latest stable kernel using yum. On booting, a few seconds after the splash screen, I get a solitary blinking cursor. Rebooting with the previous version (3.18.8-201) works fine. Video is an Nvidia GT630 using the kmod-nvidia driver. poc -- users mailing list users@lists.fedorapr

Re: kernel-core-3.18.9-200.fc21.x86_64 fails to boot

2015-03-15 Thread Joachim Backes
On 03/15/2015 01:06 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > Installed the latest stable kernel using yum. On booting, a few seconds > after the splash screen, I get a solitary blinking cursor. > > Rebooting with the previous version (3.18.8-201) works fine. > Video is an Nvidia GT630 using the kmod-nvidi

Re: Is SMART really that dumb?

2015-03-15 Thread Dave Ihnat
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 09:56:46PM -0400, Tom Horsley wrote: > There isn't anything vitally important on this drive, > but I have lots of space on my new USB3 backup drive > so I'm doing an rsync of the stuff it would be > inconvenient to lose now (maybe that will trigger > an I/O error somewhere).

Re: Is SMART really that dumb?

2015-03-15 Thread Tom Horsley
On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 08:33:06 -0500 Dave Ihnat wrote: > It only allows errors > to be seen by the host OS when it can't do this--meaning it's had enough > bad blocks accumulating to exhaust its pool. The host, in fact, hasn't seen an error. There is no trace of any I/O error reports in logs going

Re: Is SMART really that dumb?

2015-03-15 Thread Robert Nichols
On 03/14/2015 08:56 PM, Tom Horsley wrote: On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 19:33:13 -0600 Chris Murphy wrote: What do you get for: # smartctl -x /dev/sdc # parted /dev/sdc u s p It's a little long, so I uploaded it here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7pVI_DKcKbySURleHpJSXdpZWs/view?usp=sharing One

Re: installing fedora on HEWLETT PACKARD pavilion 500

2015-03-15 Thread Chris Murphy
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Angelo Moreschini wrote: > Hi Chris, > > I send you again this message > > I followed your suggestion: > I tried efibootmgr -v > and I got this output: > "efibootmgr: EFI variables are not supported on this system." This system isn't booting in UEFI mode. What

Re: Is SMART really that dumb?

2015-03-15 Thread Chris Murphy
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Robert Nichols wrote: > One thing I noticed in there is: > > 193 Load_Cycle_Count-O--CK 001 001 000-747412 > > That drive is absolutely _killing_ itself by unloading the heads every > 90 seconds or so (17421/747412 = .0233 hours/cycle). Th

Re: Is SMART really that dumb?

2015-03-15 Thread Robert Nichols
On 03/15/2015 10:23 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Robert Nichols wrote: One thing I noticed in there is: 193 Load_Cycle_Count-O--CK 001 001 000-747412 That drive is absolutely _killing_ itself by unloading the heads every 90 seconds or so (

Re: Is SMART really that dumb?

2015-03-15 Thread Tim
Allegedly, on or about 15 March 2015, Robert Nichols sent: > One thing I noticed in there is: > >193 Load_Cycle_Count-O--CK 001 001 000-747412 > > That drive is absolutely _killing_ itself by unloading the heads every > 90 seconds or so (17421/747412 = .0233 hours/cycle)

Re: Is SMART really that dumb?

2015-03-15 Thread Chris Murphy
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Robert Nichols wrote: > On 03/15/2015 10:23 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Robert Nichols >> wrote: >> >>> One thing I noticed in there is: >>> >>>193 Load_Cycle_Count-O--CK 001 001 000-747412 >>> >>> That

Re: kernel-core-3.18.9-200.fc21.x86_64 fails to boot

2015-03-15 Thread Patrick O'Callaghan
On Sun, 2015-03-15 at 13:55 +0100, Joachim Backes wrote: > On 03/15/2015 01:06 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > Installed the latest stable kernel using yum. On booting, a few seconds > > after the splash screen, I get a solitary blinking cursor. > > > > Rebooting with the previous version (3.18

Re: kernel-core-3.18.9-200.fc21.x86_64 fails to boot

2015-03-15 Thread Joe Zeff
On 03/15/2015 11:33 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: Thanks. I assume it will appear in due course (it's currently not showing in the repos but I'll just be patient). Check to make sure that you have a kmod-nvidia to match the kernel. Every now and then there's a delay in getting out the new one

Yum vs Apper

2015-03-15 Thread Jonathan Ryshpan
Yum reports that there are 121 updates needed but apper reports that the system is up to date. Why? Thanks - jon -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http

Re: Yum vs Apper

2015-03-15 Thread bitlord
On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 13:01:56 -0700 Jonathan Ryshpan wrote: > Yum reports that there are 121 updates needed but apper reports that > the system is up to date. Why? > > Thanks - jon > They use different cache, also they can get data from different mirrors. So that is probably OK, if you wait so

Re: kernel-core-3.18.9-200.fc21.x86_64 fails to boot

2015-03-15 Thread Patrick O'Callaghan
On Sun, 2015-03-15 at 11:42 -0700, Joe Zeff wrote: > On 03/15/2015 11:33 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > Thanks. I assume it will appear in due course (it's currently not > > showing in the repos but I'll just be patient). > > Check to make sure that you have a kmod-nvidia to match the kernel.

Re: kernel-core-3.18.9-200.fc21.x86_64 fails to boot

2015-03-15 Thread Joe Zeff
On 03/15/2015 02:22 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: I actually do have that, just not the kernel itself. Well, if nothing else, we've eliminated a possible cause and narrowed things down a tad. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: h

Re: Yum vs Apper

2015-03-15 Thread Ed Greshko
On 03/16/15 04:01, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote: > Yum reports that there are 121 updates needed but apper reports that the > system is up to date. Why? > > Thanks - jon > See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152079 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189602 Ed -- If you

Re: Yum vs Apper

2015-03-15 Thread Jonathan Ryshpan
On 03/16/15 04:01, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote: > > Yum reports that there are 121 updates needed but apper reports that > the system is up to date. Why? On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 05:39 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: > See > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152079 > > https://bugzilla.redhat

Re: Yum vs Apper

2015-03-15 Thread Temlakos
On 03/15/2015 06:09 PM, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote: On 03/16/15 04:01, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote: Yum reports that there are 121 updates needed but apper reports that the system is up to date. Why? On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 05:39 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cg

Re: Is SMART really that dumb?

2015-03-15 Thread Ian Pilcher
On 03/14/2015 06:56 PM, Tom Horsley wrote: On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 16:42:37 -0600 Chris Murphy wrote: If there's a definite latent sector error, this shows up with a 'smarctl -t long' which will be aborted at the first error found. The LBA for this shows up under LBA_of_first_error. I actually ra

Re: Is SMART really that dumb?

2015-03-15 Thread Roger Heflin
I have seen my seagate 3tb drive not clear PENDING, not sure of the exact set of conditions for it to not clear. After doing something (booting, running a long test or something) it finally cleared the pending. On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Ian Pilcher wrote: > On 03/14/2015 06:56 PM, Tom Hor

Re: Is SMART really that dumb?

2015-03-15 Thread Chris Murphy
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Ian Pilcher wrote: > (Or it may the the drugs.) My Samsung 840 EVO is on drugs. SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 1 Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds: ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED WHEN_FAILED