[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: What causes single user boot?



> In article <[🔎] 6uvv02$kbq$1@sunsystem5.informatik.tu-muenchen.de>,
> Andy Spiegl <news.andy@spiegl.de> wrote:
> >Hi!
> >
> >I've got a webserver which is running constantly.  A few days ago
> >we had to reboot it, because of a SCSI problem with the JAZ drive.
> >(side note: can you imagine the load went up to 115 still growing!?)
> >
> >Well, after the reboot the system stopped at the prompt:
> >Press Ctrl-D or give root password.
> 
> Can be 3 things:
> 
> 1. You turned on sulogin on boot in /etc/default/rcS
> 2. A filesystem check failed because there were serious errors and
>    the system wants you to run fsck manually
> 3. A filesystem check failed because the driver for a disk
>    (say a SCSI driver module) wasn't loaded.
> 
> If it was (2), you can prevent that by setting FSCKFIX=yes
> in /etc/default/rcS. It will forcibly check all file systems and
> repair them even if there are serious errors. This might result in
> dataloss, but usually there isn't anything else you can do even
> if you do run the fsck manually.
> 

   This happens on my system since upgrading to Hamm.  The problem seems
to be that fsck -A tries to check /fd0 (since I have entries for /fd0 in
fsab) and fails since no disk is in the drive.  If that is the case then
the FSCKFIX=yes won't help.  I have't had time to address this issue yet.
Changing the /etc/fstab entries or the startup script may be necessary.

-Chris
 
-- 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   Dr. Christopher D. Judd                                              |
|   NYS Dept. of Health                             judd@wadsworth.org   |
|   Wadsworth Center - ESP                                               |
|   P.O. Box 509                                       518 486-7829      |
|   Albany, NY 12201-0509                                                |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|


Reply to: