Hi Frederic,

I'm having similar problems with the same kernel version you mentioned.

I have a physical Dell server running SL 6.5 (64 bit), and each kernel works 
fine except the very last one. The significant difference to my other machines 
is that this one's got a hardware RAID card (01:00.0 RAID bus controller: LSI 
Logic / Symbios Logic MegaRAID SAS 2008 [Falcon] (rev 03)) and the system gives 
an error message of this kind on early boot (after grub and before loading 
kernel I believe):

"Trying to reach block outside of partition."

I couldn't track down the problem and gave up too on this kernel version. I 
look forward to hear if others got such issues too.


Cheers,
Andras


On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 08:52:28 +0000
SCHAER Frederic <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> This is not the first time it happens for us, and it again happened yesterday 
> : we rebooted our SL6 machines into a new kernel 
> (2.6.32-431.17.1.el6.x86_64), and *bam*, one of them got into kernel panic.
> Rebooting into the previous kernel works fine.
> 
> Last time this happened, this was on a virtual machine (which is the exact 
> same VM as many other VMs which were fine, running SL6.5) : I uninstalled the 
> kernel, reinstalled it, rebooted : kernel panic.
> I zeroes the kernel files in /boot, suspecting there was something weird with 
> the filesystem, ran fsck, removed the kernel, reinstalled : kernel panic.
> On that specific VM, I ended giving up on that kernel, and it appears that it 
> is finally happily booting on latest kernel 2.6.32-431.17.1.el6.x86_64 even 
> if we did not fix the previous issue... ??
> 
> This time, this is another physical machine (SL 6.3) which went into kernel 
> panic, and since it's a core storage machine I did not have time to run as 
> many tests as with the VM or as when this previously appeared.
> I remember this already happened on SL5, and reinstalling "solved" the 
> issue...
> 
> I'm wondering if others are facing this strange erratic behavior, and would 
> have ideas for debugging it ?
> For us, it appears this was one host  failing for 359 working...
> 
> Thanks && regards
> Frederic

Reply via email to