LinuxQuestions.org
Download your favorite Linux distribution at LQ ISO.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 09-03-2019, 12:43 PM   #1
Nick-us
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2019
Distribution: Slackware64-Current
Posts: 33

Rep: Reputation: 7
Unhappy Confused with partition completely crazy


I would like to understand why this information is so wrong and confusing

I use Slackware64-Current.
It is installed on sda6
sda1 is completely empty

But the command below reports everything wrong, showing that sda1 is mounted

Code:
bash-4.4# lsblk
NAME   MAJ:MIN RM   SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT
sda      8:0    0 931.5G  0 disk 
├─sda1   8:1    0    40G  0 part /
├─sda2   8:2    0    10G  0 part [SWAP]
├─sda3   8:3    0   100G  0 part 
├─sda4   8:4    0     1K  0 part 
├─sda5   8:5    0 761.5G  0 part /mnt/dados
└─sda6   8:6    0    20G  0 part 
sr0     11:0    1  1024M  0 rom  
bash-4.4#
Even gparted reports it wrong

I'm not crazy! And I know exactly what I'm saying! sda1 is completely empty! And my system is on sda6

And to be absolutely sure of that I run a LiveCD to check the partitions

Can anyone help me explain what is going on? Because this completely wrong and crazy information creates confusion.

Below my lilo that may serve to clarify

Code:
append=" vt.default_utf8=1"

boot = /dev/sda

compact
lba32

bitmap = /boot/image.bmp
bmp-colors = 0,171,0,0,171,0
bmp-table = 1,2,1,16
bmp-timer = none

prompt

change-rules
  reset

vga=0x37F

image = /boot/vmlinuz
  root = /dev/sda6
  label = Linux
  read-only

other = /dev/sda3
  label = Win10
  table = /dev/sda
 
Old 09-03-2019, 12:53 PM   #2
Labinnah
Member
 
Registered: May 2014
Location: Łódź, Poland
Distribution: Slackware-current
Posts: 150

Rep: Reputation: 88
Show output of this commands:
Code:
sfdisk -d /dev/sda
mount
cat /etc/fstab
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 09-03-2019, 02:04 PM   #3
Alien Bob
Slackware Contributor
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 7,639

Rep: Reputation: 6066Reputation: 6066Reputation: 6066Reputation: 6066Reputation: 6066Reputation: 6066Reputation: 6066Reputation: 6066Reputation: 6066Reputation: 6066Reputation: 6066
Looks like perhaps there is an earlier installation of Slackware on that computer and you booted into that one.

If you re-installed to /dev/sda6 and forgot to run the command "lilo" then the lilo which is installed into the MBR may still be booting your older installation of Slackware from /dev/sda1 .
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 09-03-2019, 03:00 PM   #4
Nick-us
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2019
Distribution: Slackware64-Current
Posts: 33

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labinnah View Post
Show output of this commands:
Code:
sfdisk -d /dev/sda
mount
cat /etc/fstab
Code:
bash-4.4# sfdisk -d /dev/sda
label: dos
label-id: 0xcb83e875
device: /dev/sda
unit: sectors

/dev/sda1 : start=        2048, size=    83886080, type=83
/dev/sda2 : start=    83888128, size=    20971520, type=82
/dev/sda3 : start=   104859648, size=   209715200, type=7, bootable
/dev/sda4 : start=   314574848, size=  1638944768, type=5
/dev/sda5 : start=   314576896, size=  1596999680, type=83
/dev/sda6 : start=  1911578624, size=    41940992, type=83
bash-4.4#
Code:
bash-4.4# mount
/dev/sda1 on / type ext4 (rw)
proc on /proc type proc (rw)
sysfs on /sys type sysfs (rw)
tmpfs on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw)
/dev/sda5 on /mnt/dados type ext4 (rw)
devpts on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,gid=5,mode=620)
vmware-vmblock on /var/run/vmblock-fuse type fuse.vmware-vmblock (rw,nosuid,nodev,default_permissions,allow_other)
gvfsd-fuse on /home/hcs/.gvfs type fuse.gvfsd-fuse (rw,nosuid,nodev,user=hcs)
bash-4.4#
Code:
bash-4.4# cat /etc/fstab
#device-spec     mount-point      fs-type     options        dump pass

#LABEL=swap      swap             swap        defaults         0   0
/dev/sda2        swap             swap        defaults         0   0

/dev/sda1        /                ext4        defaults         0   1
#LABEL=sda1      /                ext4        defaults         0   1
#LABEL=Old       /                ext4        defaults         0   1

LABEL=dados      /mnt/dados       ext4        defaults         0   1

#LABEL=C3        /mnt/C3          ext4        defaults         0   2
#LABEL=280G      /mnt/280Gb       ext4        defaults         0   2
#LABEL=Seagate   /mnt/Seagate     ntfs-3g     defaults         0   2
#LABEL=Win10     /mnt/Win10       ntfs-3g     defaults         0   2

devpts           /dev/pts         devpts      gid=5,mode=620   0   0
proc             /proc            proc        defaults         0   0
tmpfs            /dev/shm         tmpfs       defaults         0   0
bash-4.4#
Looking at my fstab, I wondered if this could be his fault?
Understand that sda1 is completely empty. There is no other system installed, or file rest on sda1.
 
Old 09-03-2019, 03:04 PM   #5
Nick-us
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2019
Distribution: Slackware64-Current
Posts: 33

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alien Bob View Post
Looks like perhaps there is an earlier installation of Slackware on that computer and you booted into that one.

If you re-installed to /dev/sda6 and forgot to run the command "lilo" then the lilo which is installed into the MBR may still be booting your older installation of Slackware from /dev/sda1 .
sda1 is 100% empty. There is no rest of installation.
I really saw that fstab is kind of wrong. That's because I completely moved the installation from sda1 to sda6. Erasing sda1 completely.

And of course, I had to run lilo to make it work on sda6.
Curious is that fstab was spelled wrong and I didn't get any error messages for it, and the system still loads.

I did not understand why the lack of error message, and why it works!
 
Old 09-03-2019, 03:08 PM   #6
Nick-us
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2019
Distribution: Slackware64-Current
Posts: 33

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 7
What I could understand with the idea of Labinnah

Although lilo was registered in sda6 and the system is in sda6
fstab is mounting the / on sda1
I think creating a link in sda1 to sda6
Well crazy what happened
 
Old 09-03-2019, 03:13 PM   #7
Labinnah
Member
 
Registered: May 2014
Location: Łódź, Poland
Distribution: Slackware-current
Posts: 150

Rep: Reputation: 88
I suspect you can have wrong entry in /etc/fstab. Root partition entry, in fact, ins't used to mount it. It is done on boot from "root" kernel parameter. Run "df" and compare sizes of "/" mount point and partitions. sda1 and sda6 differs in size so you can have clean answer.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 09-03-2019, 03:20 PM   #8
Didier Spaier
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Nov 2008
Location: Paris, France
Distribution: Slint64-14.2.1.2 on Lenovo Thinkpad W520
Posts: 8,957

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Maybe for some reason the partitions got renamed after lilo was run, but the boot sector in the MBR was not affected, and the root partition that was name sda6 when you ran lilo is now named sda1.

I don't think that /dev/sda1 be empty as else your system wouldn't work at all.

Ads suggested by Labinnah please tell us what says (typed from the running system)
Code:
df -h

Last edited by Didier Spaier; 09-03-2019 at 03:21 PM.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 09-03-2019, 03:21 PM   #9
Nick-us
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2019
Distribution: Slackware64-Current
Posts: 33

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labinnah View Post
I suspect you can have wrong entry in /etc/fstab. Root partition entry, in fact, ins't used to mount it. It is done on boot from "root" kernel parameter. Run "df" and compare sizes of "/" mount point and partitions. sda1 and sda6 differs in size so you can have clean answer.
Yes, when you asked to see fstab, it was the first thing I noticed. Because on fstab I reported the mount point on sda1.
I fixed this (for sda6) and it was obviously normal.

I just didn't understand how the system worked normally without errors. Because I only discovered the problem when I wanted to mount sda1 and saw that it was mounted strangely
 
Old 09-03-2019, 03:26 PM   #10
Nick-us
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2019
Distribution: Slackware64-Current
Posts: 33

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Didier Spaier View Post
Maybe for some reason the partitions got renamed after lilo was run, but the boot sector in the MBR was not affected, and the root partition that was name sda6 when you ran lilo is now named sda1.

I don't think that /dev/sda1 be empty as else your system wouldn't work at all.

Ads suggested by Labinnah please tell us what says (typed from the running system)
Code:
df -h
Code:
bash-4.4# df -h
Filesystem      Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/root        20G   15G  3.8G  80% /
devtmpfs        3.9G     0  3.9G   0% /dev
tmpfs            32M  1.3M   31M   5% /run
tmpfs           3.9G   40K  3.9G   1% /dev/shm
cgroup_root     8.0M     0  8.0M   0% /sys/fs/cgroup
/dev/sda5       749G  582G  129G  82% /mnt/dados
bash-4.4#
This is what shows in the wrong fstab state. That is when I asked the question here. Remembering that there is nothing, no file in sda1

In his command, I also noticed that the information he gives of size and etc is from sda6 and not from sda1.
sda1 is 40Gb and not 20Gb

Last edited by Nick-us; 09-03-2019 at 03:34 PM. Reason: Adding more information
 
Old 09-03-2019, 03:30 PM   #11
Nick-us
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2019
Distribution: Slackware64-Current
Posts: 33

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Didier Spaier View Post
Maybe for some reason the partitions got renamed after lilo was run, but the boot sector in the MBR was not affected, and the root partition that was name sda6 when you ran lilo is now named sda1.
When I run lilo in this case, I always run the partition that will be used, and in this case it was from sda6. He did not report any errors.

Quote:
I don't think that /dev/sda1 be empty as else your system wouldn't work at all.
I thought so too. For me it should not work the system, and precisely because it worked without presenting any error msg I did not realize.

The only explanation I believe it to be is that fstab just created a link. I don't know exactly how it worked! The fact is that fstab being wrong should not usually work
 
Old 09-03-2019, 03:35 PM   #12
Labinnah
Member
 
Registered: May 2014
Location: Łódź, Poland
Distribution: Slackware-current
Posts: 150

Rep: Reputation: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick-us View Post
I just didn't understand how the system worked normally without errors.
As this entry ins't used for "real mounting" is no matter what you put there. System starts normal, but some tools may show garbage output as they expect correct value. If rc.S wasn't expect to found this entry, system will be start even without it (I've test lately both cases, by accident ).
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 09-03-2019, 03:36 PM   #13
Nick-us
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2019
Distribution: Slackware64-Current
Posts: 33

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 7
With all the above information.
Could anyone explain how what happened was possible?
Did fstab really link from sda1 to sda6?
I know we solved the problem by finding the error in fstab. But I just would like to understand what happened.
 
Old 09-03-2019, 04:16 PM   #14
Firerat
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2008
Distribution: Debian sid
Posts: 1,960

Rep: Reputation: 538Reputation: 538Reputation: 538Reputation: 538Reputation: 538Reputation: 538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick-us View Post
With all the above information.
Could anyone explain how what happened was possible?
Did fstab really link from sda1 to sda6?
I know we solved the problem by finding the error in fstab. But I just would like to understand what happened.
When did you gen. the initrd?
is that mounting / ?

Edit: ah, no initrd

Last edited by Firerat; 09-03-2019 at 04:34 PM.
 
Old 09-03-2019, 04:19 PM   #15
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 2,380

Rep: Reputation: 2389Reputation: 2389Reputation: 2389Reputation: 2389Reputation: 2389Reputation: 2389Reputation: 2389Reputation: 2389Reputation: 2389Reputation: 2389Reputation: 2389
I wonder if this is the cause (emboldened)...

Code:
boot = /dev/sda

compact
lba32

bitmap = /boot/image.bmp
bmp-colors = 0,171,0,0,171,0
bmp-table = 1,2,1,16
bmp-timer = none

prompt

change-rules
  reset

vga=0x37F

image = /boot/vmlinuz
  root = /dev/sda6
  label = Linux
  read-only

other = /dev/sda3
  label = Win10
  table = /dev/sda
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Are You Kidding? Is This Crazy or am I Crazy? Unattended-upgrades happydog500 Linux - Security 13 01-20-2017 07:26 AM
Going crazy with crazy contact lenses puffaddering Linux - Certification 1 07-29-2007 08:42 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:10 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration