Gregg's Nearly Interminable Adventures in Linux Land

[Gregg Bell]

It's the next morning and nothing really changed. The computer started sometime between 15 minutes and a half hour. I've done what I can, so I have to believe it's the bug people are talking about. Going to forget about it for a while.

Thanks everybody for all the help.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

It's the next morning and nothing really changed. The computer started sometime between 15 minutes and a half hour. I've done what I can, so I have to believe it's the bug people are talking about. Going to forget about it for a while.

Thanks everybody for all the help.

I hope it's a simple bug. Is there an option in your boot menu to test your RAM? If so, start it when you go to bed and check it in the morning. You could also check to see if your RAM is properly seated. Long delays like this are often traced back to faulty RAM or a failing hard drive. Do you have GSmartControl or something similar to test your drive?

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

I hope it's a simple bug. Is there an option in your boot menu to test your RAM? If so, start it when you go to bed and check it in the morning. You could also check to see if your RAM is properly seated. Long delays like this are often traced back to faulty RAM or a failing hard drive. Do you have GSmartControl or something similar to test your drive?

Thanks rjb. I am going to let this sort of roll for a while. I don't have a way of testing the RAM, and I don't have the Smart control to test the hard drive. The way I see it now, it's possible but very unlikely that the RAM or the hard drive are the issues. The computer is relatively new, and I think it would be an incredible coincidence that I have RAM and hard drive problems right at the time I did the upgrade. (In other words, I think one way or another the upgrade is the culprit.) So, I'll keep the RAM and hard drive tests as aces in the hole if this thing doesn't clear up another way. Appreciate your help!

[Glorfindel]

Ubuntu has a memory testing program as well as a 'disk' utility for checking ram and hard drives, respectively. Both are built-in in every Ubuntu I've used.

[Dngrsone]

Well, I broke the internet for several hours trying to get my firewall to connect through the modem. No joy.

The good news is, I happened to see another NVG-510 for sale at a Goodwill on the coast.

So, next time I am there (end of next month, maybe earlier), I will go and pick it up (if you can believe it, I didn't have $6.25 on me at the time) and hack that one... thereby having a working model in case things don't work out with the hack.

Meanwhile, I restored the existing order... I looked at moving to PFSense, but the learning curve looks a bit steep for what I want to do, and I already have things set up fairly well on the old Smoothwall.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

Thanks rjb. I am going to let this sort of roll for a while. I don't have a way of testing the RAM, and I don't have the Smart control to test the hard drive. The way I see it now, it's possible but very unlikely that the RAM or the hard drive are the issues.

(Traveling since last Wednesday, and playing catchup...)

I don't think this is a hardware problem. You report that when you boot the system, you do see the BIOS stuff, so the monitor works and the PC is talking to it.

You see a blank screen when Ubuntu is coming up, but that simply means nothing is being sent to the monitor. It doesn't mean nothing is happening at all.

You report that if you wait long enough, Ubuntu does come up and appears to operate normally. This is another indicator against a hardware problem.

The question is precisely what is going on in the period between when you boot the system and when Ubuntu is ready for use.

The place to check that sort of thing is in /var/log/syslog. Ubuntu records its status, and that's where the records are kept. It sounds a lot to me like there's a problem in the video configuration, Ubuntu is trying to use it the way it had been configured, failing, and eventually giving up and using a generic default. The question is what the configuration had been, why it fails after a 15.10->16.04 upgrade, and the best fix to apply. If what Ubuntu comes up with when it does[ display suits you, the fix might be "Use the generic default".

I don't think the bug report you referenced has anything to do with this. That report concerns a confusing error message about weak cryptographic signing, but if you read the thread, it appears that updates are in fact downloaded and applied. The error message is a warning, not an indication of failure.
______
Dennis

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by Glorfindel

Ubuntu has a memory testing program as well as a 'disk' utility for checking ram and hard drives, respectively. Both are built-in in every Ubuntu I've used.

Thanks Glorfindel. I did use the 'disk' utility but unfortunately it asked if I had the 'smart' something or other set up, which I did not and looked uber-complicated to set up. Anyway, I really, like Dennis said, don't think it's a hardware issue.

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by Dngrsone

Well, I broke the internet for several hours trying to get my firewall to connect through the modem. No joy.

The good news is, I happened to see another NVG-510 for sale at a Goodwill on the coast.

So, next time I am there (end of next month, maybe earlier), I will go and pick it up (if you can believe it, I didn't have $6.25 on me at the time) and hack that one... thereby having a working model in case things don't work out with the hack.

Meanwhile, I restored the existing order... I looked at moving to PFSense, but the learning curve looks a bit steep for what I want to do, and I already have things set up fairly well on the old Smoothwall.

Ha ha. ($6.25 is a lot of money!)

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

(Traveling since last Wednesday, and playing catchup...)

I don't think this is a hardware problem. You report that when you boot the system, you do see the BIOS stuff, so the monitor works and the PC is talking to it.

You see a blank screen when Ubuntu is coming up, but that simply means nothing is being sent to the monitor. It doesn't mean nothing is happening at all.

You report that if you wait long enough, Ubuntu does come up and appears to operate normally. This is another indicator against a hardware problem.

The question is precisely what is going on in the period between when you boot the system and when Ubuntu is ready for use.

The place to check that sort of thing is in /var/log/syslog. Ubuntu records its status, and that's where the records are kept. It sounds a lot to me like there's a problem in the video configuration, Ubuntu is trying to use it the way it had been configured, failing, and eventually giving up and using a generic default. The question is what the configuration had been, why it fails after a 15.10->16.04 upgrade, and the best fix to apply. If what Ubuntu comes up with when it does[ display suits you, the fix might be "Use the generic default".

I don't think the bug report you referenced has anything to do with this. That report concerns a confusing error message about weak cryptographic signing, but if you read the thread, it appears that updates are in fact downloaded and applied. The error message is a warning, not an indication of failure.
______
Dennis

Thanks Dennis. I don't think it's a hardware or a bug issue either. I've tried (with help) a million things. (Fixing packages, blah blah blah) And we only made it worse. Now I can only boot through the GRUB and only to the 15.10 kernel. And even that is screwed up--it will only boot when GRUB is set at:

GRUB_DEFAULT=4

even though the 4 does not correspond to the 15.10 kernel

I gave up. Now the plan (granted, it's not much of a plan) is to just wait for October to roll around and upgrade to 16.10 and hope that fixes it somehow. (Like I said it's not much of a plan.)

I've been in the Ubuntu forum and a lot of people are having delayed booting issues with the upgrade from 15.10 to 16.04LTS.

Right now the computer works great using the 15.10 kernel. So I'm leaving well enough alone. (This is my work computer and it would be a major hassle to lose it.)

[Gregg Bell]

Hey. I've got a new project. A Dell GX520 (see screenshot 757) crashed at work (and I got it before it was thrown out) and via "Disks" utility I saw the hard drive was bad. I wasn't sure if I wanted to try to get it going again (and the expense involved) since it's old but it's also 64 bit so I figured, What the hell. (And believe it or not the computer it will be replacing (my home computer) is even older: and only 2GB RAM and 32 bit processor)

Here is the hard drive: (screenshot 103)

Here are the hard drive's specs: (screenshot 88)

And here are the RAM sticks (and that first one is slightly covered by the sticker but it is 1 GB): (screenshot 59)

So first off I need to know that the new hard drive I get will fit and work with the GX520. Here are the two I am choosing between:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...9SIA5AD3S65664

and:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...9SIA5AD2N46613

I'm leaning toward the latter because of the 320 GB size but I could live with the 80 GB, as well.

The sticks (I have been pretty clueless about so if anybody has a better suggestion please tell me!) I have narrowed it down to (and I want 2GB + 2GB for a total of 4 GB) are the Newegg cheapest:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...scrollFullInfo

And this Samsung on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/PC2-6400-PC640...in%3A673263011

Which is even cheaper.

I'm leaning toward the Samsung, since the comptuter already had one Samsung stick. But like I said I'm pretty clueless about RAM sticks. A couple of years ago I bought a Crucial stick and it was great but when I shopped there this time the 2+2 combo was like over $50.

So, I don't want to pour a lot of money into an untested computer, but I know the computer (since it's from work) and it will be kind of fun putthing it back into shape.

But I wonder about just buying a refurbished one (like this):

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16883283256

that would at least be dual core and faster. (And maybe not that much more expensive after I get done adding stuff to the GX520.)

Anyway, that's my dilemma. Any feedback is appreciated.

Thanks!

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

I've been in the Ubuntu forum and a lot of people are having delayed booting issues with the upgrade from 15.10 to 16.04LTS.

Right now the computer works great using the 15.10 kernel. So I'm leaving well enough alone. (This is my work computer and it would be a major hassle to lose it.)

Leaving well enough alone is what I'd do. And I don't think the kernel is your problem. (I also don't think 16.10 will magically cure things.)

As it happens, I did just upgrade to Ubuntu 16.04 LTS here. I upgraded the Windows side to Win10 and ran into problems that had me cursing a blue streak. I booted into Ubuntu to Look Stuff Up, and while I was at it, did the 15.10->16.04 LTS upgrade. It proceeded with no issues and works fine.

On the Win10 side, the fixes were simple once I knew them.

The machine would not shutdown or restart, and required a power cycle. Turning off "hybrid shutdown" (intended for laptops in any case) fixed it.

The machine was also guaranteed to hang at some point no matter what I was doing (and even hung when I wasn't doing anything.) That turned out to be SSD related, and I had to turn off Windows write cache buffer flushing on that drive.

Once I made those fixes, Win10 worked perfectly. I'm up under it now. Took about 30 seconds to make the fixes, once I knew what they were.
______
Dennis

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Leaving well enough alone is what I'd do. And I don't think the kernel is your problem. (I also don't think 16.10 will magically cure things.)

Thanks Dennis. Yeah, I'm all for leaving well enough alone, but I am a little nervous about the 16.10 upgrade. Do you have a guess as to what might happen.

And now the computer will only boot via the GRUB loader. Which is fine with me (and it boots really quickly). But again it will only boot to 15.10, not to the two 16.04 kernels on there.

Anyway, for the sake of giving the 16.10 upgrade a better chance of succeeding, do you think I should change that

GRUB_DEFAULT=4

back to

GRUB_DEFAULT=0

?

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

As it happens, I did just upgrade to Ubuntu 16.04 LTS here. I upgraded the Windows side to Win10 and ran into problems that had me cursing a blue streak. I booted into Ubuntu to Look Stuff Up, and while I was at it, did the 15.10->16.04 LTS upgrade. It proceeded with no issues and works fine.

On the Win10 side, the fixes were simple once I knew them.

The machine would not shutdown or restart, and required a power cycle. Turning off "hybrid shutdown" (intended for laptops in any case) fixed it.

The machine was also guaranteed to hang at some point no matter what I was doing (and even hung when I wasn't doing anything.) That turned out to be SSD related, and I had to turn off Windows write cache buffer flushing on that drive.

Once I made those fixes, Win10 worked perfectly. I'm up under it now. Took about 30 seconds to make the fixes, once I knew what they were.
______
Dennis

Must be nice to know what you're doing! LOL! Good for you!

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

Thanks Dennis. Yeah, I'm all for leaving well enough alone, but I am a little nervous about the 16.10 upgrade. Do you have a guess as to what might happen.

And now the computer will only boot via the GRUB loader. Which is fine with me (and it boots really quickly). But again it will only boot to 15.10, not to the two 16.04 kernels on there.

Do the two 16.04 kernels even show in the grub menu?

If not, it needs to be rebuilt. Try "sudo update-grub" in a terminal.

Anyway, for the sake of giving the 16.10 upgrade a better chance of succeeding, do you think I should change that

GRUB_DEFAULT=4

back to

GRUB_DEFAULT=0

?

What that does is change what OS selection is the default to boot into when the machine is started. It should not affect the success of an upgrade.

Must be nice to know what you're doing! LOL! Good for you!

I had to Look Stuff Up. I know how to do that. You would be better off creating an account on the Ubuntu forums and asking your questions there. It's why they exist.

If I recall correctly, the 16.04 upgrade worked on your machine, but after it took longer than before for the expected screen to actually appear after booting. This is a video configuration issue, not a kernel problem. As I also recall, if you just waited a while, video would occur, and your main issue was not wanting to wait?

I ran into something like this another Ubuntu installation. The machine used an ATI Mobility chipset, and would do 1280x768 native. After an upgrade, it would only do 1024x768 in Ubuntu. Poking around revealed Ubuntu knew 1280x768 was a supported video mode, but I never could find where to make the change so Ubuntu would do it. That actually did get fixed by another version upgrade.
______
Dennis

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Do the two 16.04 kernels even show in the grub menu?

Yes.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

If not, it needs to be rebuilt. Try "sudo update-grub" in a terminal.

Already did that. I've been in the Ubuntu forum and this guy was helping me--he tried a million things and actually the computer just kept getting worse.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

What that does is change what OS selection is the default to boot into when the machine is started. It should not affect the success of an upgrade.

Thanks. I think I'm going to change it anyway. I mean, I have to boot from the GRUB so it doesn't make any difference what the default is.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

I had to Look Stuff Up. I know how to do that. You would be better off creating an account on the Ubuntu forums and asking your questions there. It's why they exist.

If I recall correctly, the 16.04 upgrade worked on your machine, but after it took longer than before for the expected screen to actually appear after booting. This is a video configuration issue, not a kernel problem. As I also recall, if you just waited a while, video would occur, and your main issue was not wanting to wait?

I just thought it would be an easy fix. The computer was working great--it just took 15 minutes to boot. Instead of the easy fix, we just kept going deeper and deeper and things got really convoluted. I was like, 'This is crazy' and bailed.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

I ran into something like this another Ubuntu installation. The machine used an ATI Mobility chipset, and would do 1280x768 native. After an upgrade, it would only do 1024x768 in Ubuntu. Poking around revealed Ubuntu knew 1280x768 was a supported video mode, but I never could find where to make the change so Ubuntu would do it. That actually did get fixed by another version upgrade.
______
Dennis

That's what I'm hoping for. And well, you said an upgrade probably won't fix it, but will I just have the same situation as now, ie. booting from GRUB?

Thanks.

[Gregg Bell]

Please see post #670