Re: Curious about crash.

Here is my little TRKCOMP exec. Sometimes I am hesitant to put something like this out because there is going to be at least one critic that says it is 'incorrect'. It is just something I did with copy/paste of other code... Do with it as you please. /* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Re: Curious about crash.

>>> On 12/22/2015 at 05:40 PM, Rick Troth wrote: > On 12/22/2015 04:16 PM, Tom Huegel wrote: >> My ignorance overflows.. >> When I look on my INTEL LINUX I can find grub.cfg in boot/grub2 but I >> cannot find it in the zLINUX. Most likely because it doesn't exist on your

Re: Curious about crash.

My ignorance overflows.. When I look on my INTEL LINUX I can find grub.cfg in boot/grub2 but I cannot find it in the zLINUX. ls /boot bootmap symvers-2.6.32-573.8.1.el6.s390x.gz config-2.6.32-431.el6.s390x System.map-2.6.32-431.el6.s390x

Re: Curious about crash.

On 12/22/2015 04:16 PM, Tom Huegel wrote: > My ignorance overflows.. > When I look on my INTEL LINUX I can find grub.cfg in boot/grub2 but I > cannot find it in the zLINUX. Probably me making ASSumptions. GRUB recently learned how to play in z land, and the distros have picked that up. There are

Re: Curious about crash.

On 12/22/2015 11:55 AM, Tom Huegel wrote: > Why these LINUX machines are setup the way they are is a mystery to me. As > part of the lab exercise I used XCAT to provision the machines.. So we're all learning from your experience. Kind of you to walk point with XCAT for the rest of us. :-) >

Re: Curious about crash.

Why these LINUX machines are setup the way they are is a mystery to me. As part of the lab exercise I used XCAT to provision the machines.. Following what Rick said I was able to boot the failing machine.. I don't know what to do next, but it is booted. On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Rick

Re: Curious about crash.

I'm a little surprised that you are using -part2. We format all DASD with a single partition. If we want to break something up, we break it up into separate minidisks, each with a single partition. That allows us to tune using monitor data. Are you really using partition 2? If so, I'd be

Re: Curious about crash.

On 12/16/2015 09:45 AM, Tom Huegel wrote: > VFS: Cannot open root device "disk/by-path/ccw-0.0.0100-part2" or > unknown-block(0,0) > Please append a correct "root=" boot option; here are the available > partitions: Nothin. No partitions. (More significantly, no disks at all.) I didn't see it

Re: Curious about crash.

Like I mentioned earlier this is not production system that is down. It is just a lab system that can be re-installed easily. It would be nice to have some idea of what killed it in the first place. Using DITTO I was visually trying to compare the DASD from the working and nonworking systems, but

Re: Curious about crash.

Isn't it complaining about not finding the root filesystem, not about not finding the /boot filesystem? I would take a look at that partition in question that it can't find. -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access

Re: Curious about crash.

On Wed, 16 Dec 2015, John McKown wrote: > ​Or, as one co-worker tells it, they have their CEC up against the back > wall. Unbeknownst to them, on the other side of the wall is a mega-Gauss > electromagnet. ​Magnet on, CEC fails. one of our site design rules is to never wrap the Token Ring

Re: Curious about crash.

Well Mark, I tried all 3 ipl's they all failed with the same message. On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Mark Post wrote: > >>> On 12/16/2015 at 10:44 AM, Tom Huegel wrote: > -snip- > > CP I 100 > > You're IPLing from device number 100, so that means the disk

Re: Curious about crash.

>>> On 12/16/2015 at 10:44 AM, Tom Huegel wrote: -snip- > CP I 100 You're IPLing from device number 100, so that means the disk is available to the guest. -snip- > Kernel command line: root=/dev/disk/by-path/ccw-0.0.0100-part2 rd_NO_LUKS > LANG=en_US.UTF-8 KEYTABLE=us

Re: Curious about crash.

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Paul Dembry wrote: > [AA] > A gamma ray collided with a 1 and knocked it over, turning it into a 0. > That's the only explanation I can think of. I used to think it was > sunspots or coronal mass ejections, but I've moved on. > > [PD] > Never

Re: Curious about crash.

Right the kernel appears to be different. >From the working system: Linux version 2.6.32-431.66.1.el6.s390x ( mockbu...@s390-002.build.bos.redhat.com) (gcc version 4.4.7 20120313 (Red Hat 4.4.7-4) (GCC ) ) #1 SMP Fri Oct 2 13:20:16 EDT 2015 setup: Linux is running as a z/VM guest operating system

Re: Curious about crash.

On Wed, 16 Dec 2015, Tom Huegel wrote: > Right the kernel appears to be different. * nod * Next diagnostic step would be a reinstall of a registered system, and then after a yum update, but before the reboot, please try the code below, for the phase one to chainload into, to see if it can

Re: Curious about crash.

[AA] A gamma ray collided with a 1 and knocked it over, turning it into a 0. That's the only explanation I can think of. I used to think it was sunspots or coronal mass ejections, but I've moved on. [PD] Never ignore that possibilty, it reminds me of a problem that Sun Microsystems had in the

Re: Curious about crash.

Hello! I missed that clue! Well that's a first. It seems reading a machine log for the big guy is a special talent. - Gregg C Levine gregg.drw...@gmail.com "This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again." On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Tom Huegel wrote: > Right

Re: Curious about crash.

>>> On 12/16/2015 at 10:35 PM, Thomas Anderson wrote: > Not to state the obvious, but the *kernel command line* is telling the > kernel loader that it will find a root file system and a loadable kernel > image at > "/dev/disk/by-path/ccw-0.0.0100-part2* > However when it

Re: Curious about crash.

>>> On 12/16/2015 at 03:58 PM, Tom Huegel wrote: > Well Mark, I tried all 3 ipl's they all failed with the same message. One more thing to try is perhaps root=/dev/dasda1. If you only have one disk, perhaps you'll get lucky with the device name matching. The other thing

Re: Curious about crash.

Not to state the obvious, but the “kernel command line” is telling the kernel loader that it will find a root file system and a loadable kernel image at "/dev/disk/by-path/ccw-0.0.0100-part2” However when it tries to read it, either it can’t access the device or it isn’t finding the “IPLTEXT”

Curious about crash.

I have 2 lab z/VM guest machines both are RHEL 6.5, one registered one not registered. I recently ran 'yum update' on both and all seemed to go well until I did a reboot. Now the registered machine fails to boot, the other one works fine. I'm probably not going to fix it (unless someone sees an

Re: Curious about crash.

Hello! Actually Alan you're thinking of why hundreds of satellites ignored yesterday. Actually it looks like that penguin ignored the root setting for things. First time I've seen one that revolting. Is it possible to see the log entries before that first line? - Gregg C Levine

Re: Curious about crash.

On Wednesday, 12/16/2015 at 02:48 GMT, Tom Huegel wrote: > Now the registered machine fails to boot, the other one works fine. A gamma ray collided with a 1 and knocked it over, turning it into a 0. That's the only explanation I can think of. I used to think it was

Re: Curious about crash.

Here is the whole console log. In the mean time I am attributing it to global warming. CP I 100 Booting default (2.6.32-573.8.1.el6.s390x) Initializing cgroup subsys cpuset Initializing cgroup subsys cpu Linux version 2.6.32-573.8.1.el6.s390x ( mockbu...@s390-003.build.bos.redhat.com) (gcc

Re: Curious about crash.

- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Tom Huegel Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 7:44 AM To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: Curious about crash. Here is the whole console log. In the mean time I am attributing it to global warming. CP I 100 Booti

Re: Curious about crash.

On Wed, 16 Dec 2015, Alan Altmark wrote: > On Wednesday, 12/16/2015 at 02:48 GMT, Tom Huegel > wrote: > > Now the registered machine fails to boot, the other one works fine. > > A gamma ray collided with a 1 and knocked it over, turning it into a 0. > That's the only