On Tuesday 27 October 2015 12:04:46 Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
> Am 26.10.2015 um 15:47 schrieb Peter Humphrey:
> > I keep the portage tree under /usr-bits.
> > 
> > # dmesg | grep sdb3
> > [    1.753508]  sdb: sdb1 sdb2 sdb3 sdb4 < sdb5 sdb6 sdb7 sdb8 sdb9 >
> > [    4.833460] EXT4-fs (sdb3): mounted filesystem with ordered data mode.
> > Opts: (null)
> > [  107.205918] EXT4-fs (sdb3): mounted filesystem with ordered data mode.
> > Opts: (null)
> > 
> > You can see the successful mount at 4.8 s; the entry at 107 s is me
> > mounting it again manually.
> > 
> > I've rewritten the partition label, and I've run a smartctl test which
> > reported no faults found. I've also just reduced the speed of the chipset,
> > which has three settings: good performance, better performance and turbo.
> > It adopts the turbo setting by default and I've now set it to "better".
> > It's too early yet to see if that will help.
> 
> interesting ...
> 
> What init-system? openrc or systemd?

Openrc.

> No trace of the actual unmount in any logs?

Not that I can find, no.

> Maybe also look/grep for the LABEL of the fs.

Nope, nor that.

> Maybe test if using the device-name itself ( /dev/sdb3 ) or the UUID in
> fstab changes the behavior.

I'll try reverting to /dev/sdb3 and see if that helps.

> I use UUIDs here without problems (with systemd).

The only thing I use UUIDs for here is in mdadm.conf to get the LVs started 
reliably for the main system*. Those live in partitions /dev/sd[ab][5789].

Three more things: I've had the cover off and checked the seating of the SATA 
cables; while the lid was off I watched the MB LEDs during startup, which 
seemed okay; and today the kernel was upgraded from 4.0.5 to 4.0.9; that may 
help too. (Hm ... too many changes at once.)

* Now that I think of it, one of the LVs came up as inactive the other day, 
and nothing I could think of would activate it (consulting man mdadm of 
course). In the end I had to reboot. This machine has shown some bizarre 
behaviour over the last few months. Something is definitely wrong; I just can't 
figure out what it is.

-- 
Rgds
Peter


Reply via email to