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

Re: boot times out after dist-upgrade on Stretch



Thank you for your message, Michael, and please forgive the delay in responding.

I tried booting with the 4.5 kernel after 4.6 failed to boot. It
seems, by then, that the damage had been done as I got identical
symptoms on both boots. I agree with you that the cryptsetup/LVM is to
blame (although I'd blame LVM more).

The hypothesis to test multi-user.wants came from being able to boot
into single user mode without incident and isolate default.target once
I'm in single user mode. I can also isolate default.target from the
early debug shell.

I tried to follow your advice. It seems that my box could accurately
identify the partitions from `ls`-ing through the /dev directory and
seeing everything set up correctly. fstab and crypttab also seem to be
intact during the hangup.

I ran `udevadm info` on everything I could find in /sys/class/block/
the settings you told me to check are as follows:
./dm-0 (mapper/sda5_crypt): SYSTEMD_READY=1; TAGS=:systemd:
./dm-1 (mapper/LVG-root): TAGS=:systemd: (SYSTEMD_READY is not present)
./dm-2 (mapper/LVG-var): TAGS=:systemd: (SYSTEMD_READY is not present)
./dm-3 (mapper/LVG-tmp): TAGS=:systemd: (SYSTEMD_READY is not present)
./dm-4 (mapper/LVG-home): TAGS=:systemd: (SYSTEMD_READY is not present)
./sda: TAGS=:systemd: (SYSTEMD_READY is not present)
./sda1 (/boot): TAGS=:systemd: (SYSTEMD_READY is not present)
./sda5 (crypttab/LVM partition): TAGS=:systemd: (SYSTEMD_READY is not present)

I hope that's legible. I can pastebin the full output for each of
those commands if it helps.

For kicks and giggles, I ran `sudo lvmconfig --type diff` which yielded
devices {
        cache_dir="/run/lvm"
}
I'm grasping at straws so I don't know if this is relevant or not.

With thanks,

By-the-by, since it's been a while since I've been able to tackle
this, here's the rest of the e-mail thread for context:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2016/06/msg00670.html


Reply to: