search for: evorster

On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Evert Vorster <evorster at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi there. > > I had a quick look through the archives, and I spotted a similar issue > being reported in October, but no resolution, unfortunately. > "[syslinux] Syslinux 6.02 BIOS" > > I am booting in legacy (bios) mode on a gpt partition on...

Is anyone interested in some part of this filesystem to figure out how it failed? Or can I erase and start again? Kind regards, -Evert Vorster- On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Evert Vorster <evorster@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi there. > > I have a btrfs on a raw device. (/dev/sda insted of in a partition, like > /dev/sda1 ) > The device in question is a USB hard drive with a 1TB size. > > The device worked fine for a week or so, and was mounted and unmounted quite > a few...

Hi there. I had a quick look through the archives, and I spotted a similar issue being reported in October, but no resolution, unfortunately. "[syslinux] Syslinux 6.02 BIOS" I am booting in legacy (bios) mode on a gpt partition on my laptop. It's a HP ENVY dv7. CPU: Intel i7, BIOS: InsydeH2O version: F. 12 With syslinux 4.06, it boots flawlessly. With syslinux 6.01 and 6.02, the

Hi there... I have kernel version 2.6.36.3, compiled with gcc 4.4.5, btrfstools version 0.19+20101101 I have a btrfs filesystem (/data) consisting of two 1TB hard disks, raid0. I added in another 1TB hard drive. root@X86-64:~# btrfs filesystem show failed to read /dev/sdh failed to read /dev/sdg failed to read /dev/sdf failed to read /dev/sde failed to read /dev/sr0 failed to read /dev/fd0u800

well after recently talking about how i haven''t had any problems with btrfs on several machines for ~1.5yrs... it happens :-( ) 2.6.35 kernel ) btrfs on partition 2 of sda ) no special mkfs or mount options used (except ssd) my fiancé''s EEE S101 netbook, w/SSD, is failing hard. when booting normally (subvol=__active), no special boot options, it hangs at udev... it all

> I'm just a user of the syslinux, but did run into some issues when moving > from 4.x to 5.x and now testing 6.x. The main issue I found was that some > additional .c32 files needed to be copied to make it work. Also, making sure > that all files were from the same version, since mixing different version of the > c32 files resulted in some strange results. Thanks for the

>> Straight away the booting process looks different than with 4.06. >> The periods that were showing progress in loading the initramfs now >> does not increase as the initramfs is loaded. So, only three periods >> after each initramfs. > > That happened in version 5.00. Good to know that this is expected behavior. However, some sort of indication that the initramfs