[gentoo-user] aufs2-9999 not working for a 2.6.30 kernel?
Hi, is it only me or is it well known, that even aufs2- does not build with a gentoo-sources-2.6.30(-r1-r4) ? Many thanks for a comment, Helmut. -- Helmut Jarausch Lehrstuhl fuer Numerische Mathematik RWTH - Aachen University D 52056 Aachen, Germany
Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} SSD instead of RAID1?
On 29 Jul 2009, at 19:15, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:20:53 -0700, Grant wrote: Anyway, the point of all this is to prevent an HD failure from stopping the system. An SSD is much safer, right? SSDs are still relatively new technology, so predicting failure rates is less reliable. What's wrong with using RAID-1? It's proven technology and totally resistant to a single HD failure. This was Grant's original question - whether SSD / flash technology is more reliable than RAID-1 of conventional disks? - and one to which no- one appeared comfortable giving a categorical answer. Stroller.
Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} SSD instead of RAID1?
On 29 Jul 2009, at 16:20, Grant wrote: ... Anyway, the point of all this is to prevent an HD failure from stopping the system. An SSD is much safer, right? As I told you before, I used RAID-1 of two conventional olde spinning- platter hard-drives, using a hardware-RAID SATA controller. An additional drive can be standing by as a hot-spare or RAID6 can be used (on newer controllers) which resists failure of 2 drives per array. Why would I mention this if flash memory is as obviously much safer as your above statement seems to imply? Stroller.
Re: [gentoo-user] how to amrecover in amanda-2.6.0
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 5:42 AM, Stefan G. Weichingerli...@xunil.at wrote: Didn't the binary-paths change with 2.6 ? Yes. Check if /usr/libexec/amanda/amandad exists and adjust the xinetd-entry if necessary. Did that. The binaries exist and xinetd entries point correctly. (Sorry for the very long delay in replying. My backup machine's root partition disk started failing, and it has taken me a long time to rebuild things.) John
Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} SSD instead of RAID1?
Is cost-savings the advantage of using CF instead of SSD? It sounds like it might be wiser to spend a little more (low capacity SSD drives are pretty cheap now) and have a real storage device that doesn't need an adapter and is much faster, can swap, etc. I assumed that you're looking at £100 or more for an SSD, as opposed to £10 for a CF card. I didn't check those prices, however. Are SSDs really *that* much better than CF cards in terms of write cycles? (i.e. swap) How much swap are you actually using? If the box is just a NAS, then I can't see the speed of the system drive is an issue *at all*. They're actually workstations so I don't think I should neglect the performance aspect. Should this scheme keep the system running if the HD fails? / SSD /boot SSD /home HD swap HD No. As I pointed out in one of my earlier posts, you can't put swap on the HD. It would certainly crash the system when the disk fails. Better make sure that these systems have that much RAM that they don't need a swap-partition. Alternatively, buy a decent SSD, not a cheap one, and swap on that. OK, that's right. How can I find out if 4GB RAM (the current amount) is enough? From what I understand of how Linux handles memory, it will fill it up as quickly as possible, and then free it as necessary. This makes it difficult to determine how much RAM is necessary from watching top. I read on this list that the kernel needs *some* swap, even just a tiny amount, to function properly. Is that true? If so, do you think it would be OK to put this tiny amount of swap on a cheap SSD? - Grant
Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} SSD instead of RAID1?
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 05:17:26 -0700, Grant wrote: OK, that's right. How can I find out if 4GB RAM (the current amount) is enough? From what I understand of how Linux handles memory, it will fill it up as quickly as possible, and then free it as necessary. This makes it difficult to determine how much RAM is necessary from watching top. Use free to see how much of the memory is used by buffers and caches. -- Neil Bothwick I am Tagline of Borg. Prepare to assimilate me. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} SSD instead of RAID1?
Anyway, the point of all this is to prevent an HD failure from stopping the system. An SSD is much safer, right? SSDs are still relatively new technology, so predicting failure rates is less reliable. What's wrong with using RAID-1? It's proven technology and totally resistant to a single HD failure. Well, I've read great things about the reliability of SSDs. Here's a comment from Samsung: http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/23/samsung-puts-the-kibosh-on-ssd-reliability-worries/ a pattern could be perpetually repeated in which a 64GB SSD is completely filled with data, erased, filled again, then erased again every hour of every day for years, and the user still wouldn't reach the theoretical write limit So in theory, the things are very reliable, but we wonder how they do in the real world. I'm considering a Super Talent Ultradrive which uses the relatively new Indilinx controller. There are 60 reviews of these drives on newegg.com. Of these 60, there are only 2 reports of operational problems, most of the remainder are glowing tales of speed and silence. This is a cheap drive using technology that is new even for an SSD, and still the newegg.com reports aren't dominated by reports of DOA! or Failed within 1 week! like all of the newegg.com HD reports I've seen. Of course, this is far from empirical evidence of SSD reliability, but it's very encouraging. I shy away from RAID1 for a few reasons. I posted these a little while ago: 1. RAID is another layer to learn, install, and maintain. 2. RAID isn't foolproof: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/21/2126252from=rss http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=162 3. RAID is relatively expensive on a hosted server. Let's assume that without RAID, the hard drive in use fails every 3 years and causes 24 hours of downtime with good backups. That's a loss of .09% uptime over 3 years. If the server makes $100,000/year (and the same amount every day), that's a loss of $273 over 3 years. However, my host wants $105/month for a second 15k hard drive and RAID controller card. The cost of that over 3 years is $3,780. - Grant
Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} SSD instead of RAID1?
OK, that's right. How can I find out if 4GB RAM (the current amount) is enough? From what I understand of how Linux handles memory, it will fill it up as quickly as possible, and then free it as necessary. This makes it difficult to determine how much RAM is necessary from watching top. Use free to see how much of the memory is used by buffers and caches. Thank you Neil. On one of my systems, does this tell me that although I'm using ~952MB, I'm really only using ~474MB and I don't need swap: # free total used free sharedbuffers cached Mem: 1028780 952240 76540 0 146984 330516 -/+ buffers/cache: 474740 554040 Swap: 2008116 809441927172 - Grant
Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} SSD instead of RAID1?
On Thursday 30 July 2009 14:17:26 Grant wrote: OK, that's right. How can I find out if 4GB RAM (the current amount) is enough? From what I understand of how Linux handles memory, it will fill it up as quickly as possible, and then free it as necessary. This makes it difficult to determine how much RAM is necessary from watching top. top lies. This has been discussed here many times. All your memory tools essentially tell you how much memory an app is able to see into, and most of that memory is shared with other stuff (like libs). You can't tell how much memory an app is using in any meaningful way, you are not supposed to even look at it as it changes millions of times a second. What you are supposed to do is select an allocation algorithm that works well for you in practice and let the kernel do the heavy lifting. Yes, the kernel does grab as much memory as it can for buffers and cache, then release it on demands. All modern operating systems have done this for many years - Linux just doesn't try and hide that fact from you :-) I read on this list that the kernel needs *some* swap, even just a tiny amount, to function properly. Is that true? If so, do you think it would be OK to put this tiny amount of swap on a cheap SSD? Not true. I have machines with zero swap and they work just fine. I am utterly unconcerned with out of memory conditions as whether you have swap or not, when virtual memory runs out, either way you have a horrible cockup that is hard to fix. Then there's the oom-killer that comes along, stomps all over everything and just makes it worse. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} SSD instead of RAID1?
Grant writes: From what I understand of how Linux handles memory, it will fill it up as quickly as possible, and then free it as necessary. This makes it difficult to determine how much RAM is necessary from watching top. I read on this list that the kernel needs *some* swap, even just a tiny amount, to function properly. Is that true? Not really. Think about live-CDs, the usually do not use swap space. However, I heard that having at least a little swap space may increase performance, regardless of how much free RAM there is. Don't know if this is still true nowadays (if it ever was), I doubt it. If so, do you think it would be OK to put this tiny amount of swap on a cheap SSD? If you have enough RAM (with 4GB you probably have, but that depends on how you use your workstation), you can even put your swap into RAM. Sounds silly, but http://kerneltrap.org/node/3660 claims it makes some sense. I don't believe it, but I'm no expert. Wonko
Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} SSD instead of RAID1?
OK, that's right. How can I find out if 4GB RAM (the current amount) is enough? From what I understand of how Linux handles memory, it will fill it up as quickly as possible, and then free it as necessary. This makes it difficult to determine how much RAM is necessary from watching top. top lies. This has been discussed here many times. All your memory tools essentially tell you how much memory an app is able to see into, and most of that memory is shared with other stuff (like libs). You can't tell how much memory an app is using in any meaningful way, you are not supposed to even look at it as it changes millions of times a second. What you are supposed to do is select an allocation algorithm that works well for you in practice and let the kernel do the heavy lifting. Yes, the kernel does grab as much memory as it can for buffers and cache, then release it on demands. All modern operating systems have done this for many years - Linux just doesn't try and hide that fact from you :-) I read on this list that the kernel needs *some* swap, even just a tiny amount, to function properly. Is that true? If so, do you think it would be OK to put this tiny amount of swap on a cheap SSD? Not true. I have machines with zero swap and they work just fine. I am utterly unconcerned with out of memory conditions as whether you have swap or not, when virtual memory runs out, either way you have a horrible cockup that is hard to fix. Then there's the oom-killer that comes along, stomps all over everything and just makes it worse. Sounds good. Will commenting the swap line out of /etc/fstab and rebooting disable swap? In order to resize the root partition to include the swap paritition, I'll have to boot to LiveCD right? - Grant
Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} SSD instead of RAID1?
Grant writes: Sounds good. Will commenting the swap line out of /etc/fstab and rebooting disable swap? Yes. Or, temporarily, the 'swapoff' command. In order to resize the root partition to include the swap paritition, I'll have to boot to LiveCD right? I think it might work without. If you have hda1=boot, hda2=root, hda3=swap, you could delete hda3 and hda2 with [c]fdisk and make hda2 the size of hda2+hda3, then use resize2fs to increase the size of hda2. Increasing a file system's size works online nowadays. I don't think it would work with hda2=swap and hda3=root, but I'm not sure. Using LVM, things would be easier :) Wonko
Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} SSD instead of RAID1?
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Grantemailgr...@gmail.com wrote: I read on this list that the kernel needs *some* swap, even just a tiny amount, to function properly. Is that true? If so, do you think it would be OK to put this tiny amount of swap on a cheap SSD? I have no swap and things work just fine. (8 gigs of RAM) Obviously, running without swap increases the chances of you running out of memory, but that has never happened to me.
Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} SSD instead of RAID1?
On Thursday 30 July 2009 15:47:18 Grant wrote: Not true. I have machines with zero swap and they work just fine. I am utterly unconcerned with out of memory conditions as whether you have swap or not, when virtual memory runs out, either way you have a horrible cockup that is hard to fix. Then there's the oom-killer that comes along, stomps all over everything and just makes it worse. Sounds good. Will commenting the swap line out of /etc/fstab and rebooting disable swap? Yes. Or you can just use swapoff as root. In order to resize the root partition to include the swap paritition, I'll have to boot to LiveCD right? It's safest, but not always necessary. If your partition table is laid out with the swap partition directly after the root partition, you can delete both, recreate the root partition the same size as both together. The new root partition must start where the old one did. Renumber the partitions and remember to adjust fstab if you mount by device number. Then resize the root file system. The filesystem and your kernel must support this. If your root partition and swap partition are logical partitions in fdisk, this will probably fail. I do not know why, but I never got this to work. Physical partitions work just fine. That's a lot of ifs. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
[gentoo-user] How send mail when user login on ssh or local ?
Hi Folks ! Somebody know how I to so send mail with IP and Date/time when same user login on shell ( remote or local ) ? I work with another admin's and I never told me when they access and for what my server to do something, I try log but this can be erased and maybe mail can help me about access and with this I can Ask about this access. -- Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo sistema de antivírus e acredita-se estar livre de perigo.
Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} SSD instead of RAID1?
On Thursday 30 July 2009 14:47:18 Grant wrote: Sounds good. Will commenting the swap line out of /etc/fstab and rebooting disable swap? I'd also recompile the kernel with CONFIG_SWAP=n. -- Rgds Peter
Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} SSD instead of RAID1?
Sounds good. Will commenting the swap line out of /etc/fstab and rebooting disable swap? Yes. Or, temporarily, the 'swapoff' command. In order to resize the root partition to include the swap paritition, I'll have to boot to LiveCD right? I think it might work without. If you have hda1=boot, hda2=root, hda3=swap, you could delete hda3 and hda2 with [c]fdisk and make hda2 the size of hda2+hda3, then use resize2fs to increase the size of hda2. Increasing a file system's size works online nowadays. I don't think it would work with hda2=swap and hda3=root, but I'm not sure. Thanks everyone. I have sda1=boot, sda2=swap, sda3=root. Does anyone know if I'm required to use a LiveCD in this case? - Grant
Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} SSD instead of RAID1?
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:57:52 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: If your partition table is laid out with the swap partition directly after the root partition, you can delete both, recreate the root partition the same size as both together. The new root partition must start where the old one did. Renumber the partitions and remember to adjust fstab if you mount by device number. Then resize the root file system. The filesystem and your kernel must support this. If your root partition and swap partition are logical partitions in fdisk, this will probably fail. I do not know why, but I never got this to work. I've done this with logical partitions, but I use cfdisk instead of fdisk. It's moot anyway as Grant has swap before / so a live CD session with gparted looks to be required. -- Neil Bothwick ... Veni, Vidi, Visa - I came, I saw, I charged it. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} SSD instead of RAID1?
On Thursday 30 July 2009 17:45:30 Grant wrote: Sounds good. Will commenting the swap line out of /etc/fstab and rebooting disable swap? Yes. Or, temporarily, the 'swapoff' command. In order to resize the root partition to include the swap paritition, I'll have to boot to LiveCD right? I think it might work without. If you have hda1=boot, hda2=root, hda3=swap, you could delete hda3 and hda2 with [c]fdisk and make hda2 the size of hda2+hda3, then use resize2fs to increase the size of hda2. Increasing a file system's size works online nowadays. I don't think it would work with hda2=swap and hda3=root, but I'm not sure. Thanks everyone. I have sda1=boot, sda2=swap, sda3=root. Does anyone know if I'm required to use a LiveCD in this case? Not only do you need a LiveCD, you need a backup and restore of your root partition. If you try and resize it from the front, you WILL LOSE THE FILESYSTEM ON IT. Do this: 1. Backup / 2. Delete sda2 and sda3 3. Create a new sda2 the full size of the old sda2 and sda3 combined 4. Reorder partition table in fdsisk. 5. Fix entries in fstab from sda3 and higher. 6. REBOOT into LiveCD (or run partprobe if you aware of the effects) 7. mkfs sda2 8. Restore / 9. Reboot into main system -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} SSD instead of RAID1?
I read on this list that the kernel needs *some* swap, even just a tiny amount, to function properly. Is that true? If so, do you think it would be OK to put this tiny amount of swap on a cheap SSD? I have no swap and things work just fine. (8 gigs of RAM) Obviously, running without swap increases the chances of you running out of memory, but that has never happened to me. I've been setting up all of my systems according to this, creating a 512MB swap partition: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-amd64.xml?part=1chap=4 If I have 4GB RAM, all I'm accomplishing with swap is increasing this to 4.5GB? If my system requires 4.6GB at some point, I'm in the same position I would be in if I had no swap and 4.1GB requirement? - Grant
Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} SSD instead of RAID1?
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Grantemailgr...@gmail.com wrote: I read on this list that the kernel needs *some* swap, even just a tiny amount, to function properly. Is that true? If so, do you think it would be OK to put this tiny amount of swap on a cheap SSD? I have no swap and things work just fine. (8 gigs of RAM) Obviously, running without swap increases the chances of you running out of memory, but that has never happened to me. I've been setting up all of my systems according to this, creating a 512MB swap partition: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-amd64.xml?part=1chap=4 If I have 4GB RAM, all I'm accomplishing with swap is increasing this to 4.5GB? If my system requires 4.6GB at some point, I'm in the same position I would be in if I had no swap and 4.1GB requirement? As far as I understand it, correct.
Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} SSD instead of RAID1?
I read on this list that the kernel needs *some* swap, even just a tiny amount, to function properly. Is that true? If so, do you think it would be OK to put this tiny amount of swap on a cheap SSD? I have no swap and things work just fine. (8 gigs of RAM) Obviously, running without swap increases the chances of you running out of memory, but that has never happened to me. I've been setting up all of my systems according to this, creating a 512MB swap partition: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-amd64.xml?part=1chap=4 If I have 4GB RAM, all I'm accomplishing with swap is increasing this to 4.5GB? If my system requires 4.6GB at some point, I'm in the same position I would be in if I had no swap and 4.1GB requirement? As far as I understand it, correct. Alright, I'm off swap for good then. I love simplification. - Grant
Re: [gentoo-user] How send mail when user login on ssh or local ?
2009/7/30 Vagner Rodrigues vag...@litrixlinux.org: Hi Folks ! Somebody know how I to so send mail with IP and Date/time when same user login on shell ( remote or local ) ? I work with another admin's and I never told me when they access and for what my server to do something, I try log but this can be erased and maybe mail can help me about access and with this I can Ask about this access. -- Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo sistema de antivírus e acredita-se estar livre de perigo. Well, all questions regarding the reasons you'd be giving root privs to someone you don't entirely trust aside... the quick and dirty approach I can think of would be to modify the system wide /etc/profile to check uid and send an email if a given uid is logged in. In the end, there's little to no way I'm aware of to guarantee being alerted about use once someone's being handed root privileges. If you do go about setting it up that way... OpenSSH sets variables[1] regarding the session (IP and such) and those can be used to identify that. The `tty` command[2] can be used to tell you whether the access is direct physical access to the system's virtual consoles or not. You could even bypass dependency on the local system having working mail configuration and such if you have an smtp server off-host you can send through by using netcat. A Windows variation[3] I found of the same principle idea does just that. And, lastly, if you use sudo you can leverage its own auditing capabilities to know when it's being used[4]. [1] For example: SSH_CLIENT=127.0.0.1 44681 22 SSH_TTY=/dev/pts/1 SSH_CONNECTION=127.0.0.1 44681 127.0.0.1 22 Which are of the form: SSH_CLIENT=client ip client port server port SSH_TTY=local tty or pty SSH_CONNECTION=client ip client port server ip server port [2] http://swoolley.org/man.cgi/tty [3] http://community.spiceworks.com/how_to/show/225 [4] http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/sudo-send-e-mail-sudo-log-file/ -- Poison [BLX] Joshua M. Murphy Real programmers can write assembly code in any language. - Larry Wall
Re: [gentoo-user] Changing xorg.conf at runtime (nVidia cards)
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Mike Mazur mma...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, Hi I have an nVidia card, and I can use the NVIDIA X Server Settings app to dynamically detect and configure displays I connect to my laptop. When I'm done with the configuration, I simply apply it, and keep on truckin' without having to restart X. I don't use xorg.conf in my notebook Lenovo T61, Intel 965GSM , xorg and xfce ~x86, gentoo 2.6.30 with KMS, anymore. Both kernel and X switch to 1280x800 resolution automatically, xinerama is disable. Doing this manually each time I connect/disconnect an external display can get tiresome. I can generate an xorg.conf for each setup I frequently use (ie: different monitors at work/home, no monitor on the go), but that means restarting X when the display configuration changes. This can be undesirable if I just want to move from my desk to the living room. I'd like to run a single command, passing it one of my xorg.conf files (for instance), and have my screens configured on-the-fly. I looked at the command-line options for nvidia-settings and nvidia-xconfig but they don't seem to do what I want. I also looked at XRandR but I'm not sure what's the best way forward. Does anyone have something like this already set up? What did you use? Will these nvidia tools do what I need or should I look to XRandR? How do I get started with setting up XRandR? When I connect a external monitor, I just use this basic script to adjust my external monitor to have a wide screen (VGA1) xrandr --output LVDS1 --mode 1280x800 xrandr --output VGA1 --mode 1280x1024 --above LVDS1 To do this more useful, you can pass the resolution of VGA1 as a parameter. To disable wide screen : xrandr --output LVDS --mode 1280x800 xrandr --output VGA --mode 1024x1024 --same-as LVDS Thanks! Mike
[gentoo-user] Re: How send mail when user login on ssh or local ?
Vagner Rodrigues vag...@litrixlinux.org writes: Hi Folks ! Somebody know how I to so send mail with IP and Date/time when same user login on shell ( remote or local ) ? I work with another admin's and I never told me when they access and for what my server to do something, I try log but this can be erased and maybe mail can help me about access and with this I can Ask about this access. Do you really think the other admins would be erasing logs? one way to get some input would be to run your own script that calls `w' who `who' every half hour and writes it to a file with `' redirect. Then once a day the script could mail you the resulting file. If the other admins are logging in as root... you would see where they were logging in from... and possibly identify them that way... also `w' may give a little hint as to what they are doing. Some scanning of the output file would reveal quite a lot of info over time. look at `man w' or `man who' for what you would be getting The output might look something like this...showing who is logged in and from where: w [...] USERTTY FROM LOGIN@ IDLE WHAT jhc p1 pool-173-70-160- 2:36AM 0 /bin/ksh cytroic p3 fw1.appliedcard. 02Jul09 7days screen -x st p4 mais2.cat.utexas Wed07PM 20:26 -bash rob pa 216-239-45-4.goo Sun11PM27 screen -rd dwa ph 68-116-196-242.d 8:10PM 1:00 -bash reader pk c-98-215-178-110 9:57PM 0 w mage pq c-65-34-215-99.h Fri10PM 5days screen -r Or use `who' to get a full print of the remote hosts users are logging in from: who jhc ttyp1Jul 30 02:36 (pool-173-70-160-108.nwrknj.fios.) cytroic ttyp3Jul 2 13:59 (fw1.appliedcard.com) st ttyp4Jul 29 19:05 (mais2.cat.utexas.edu) rob ttypaJul 26 23:50 (216-239-45-4.google.com) dwa ttyphJul 30 20:10 (68-116-196-242.dhcp.oxfr.ma.char) reader ttypkJul 30 21:57 (c-98-215-178-110.hsd1.in.comcast) mage ttypqJul 24 22:49 (c-65-34-215-99.hsd1.fl.comcast.n)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How send mail when user login on ssh or local ?
On Friday 31 July 2009 00:05:16 Harry Putnam wrote: Somebody know how I to so send mail with IP and Date/time when same user login on shell ( remote or local ) ? I work with another admin's and I never told me when they access and for what my server to do something, I try log but this can be erased and maybe mail can help me about access and with this I can Ask about this access. Do you really think the other admins would be erasing logs? That's what I was thinking. If you don't trust the other admin, then either: 1. You need to stop being the admin, or 2. The other person needs to stop being the admin. This is not a technical problem, it does not need a technical solution. It is a human problem and it needs a human solution. This sounds nasty. Of course it is nasty - it intended it to be. But it's also true. In 25 years in this game, I have never found the above to be false. Trying to do anything about it is a fool's game and down that path lies madness. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] Changing xorg.conf at runtime (nVidia cards)
Hi, On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 05:44, Fernando Antunesfs.antu...@gmail.com wrote: I don't use xorg.conf in my notebook Lenovo T61, Intel 965GSM , xorg and xfce ~x86, gentoo 2.6.30 with KMS, anymore. Both kernel and X switch to 1280x800 resolution automatically, xinerama is disable. Interesting, so you don't have /etc/X11/xorg.conf file at all? When I connect a external monitor, I just use this basic script to adjust my external monitor to have a wide screen (VGA1) xrandr --output LVDS1 --mode 1280x800 xrandr --output VGA1 --mode 1280x1024 --above LVDS1 To do this more useful, you can pass the resolution of VGA1 as a parameter. To disable wide screen : xrandr --output LVDS --mode 1280x800 xrandr --output VGA --mode 1024x1024 --same-as LVDS I have seen examples like this, but they all start with execute `xrandr -q` to see which displays are connected which in my case doesn't work. I only see something like this: $ xrandr -q Screen 0: minimum 2560 x 1024, current 2560 x 1024, maximum 2560 x 1024 default connected 2560x1024+0+0 0mm x 0mm 2560x1024 50.0* I think this may be because I'm using the xorg.conf files as generated by the nvidia-settings tool. I'll try starting X without an xorg.conf file to see if this has any effect. Thanks, Mike
Re: [gentoo-user] Changing xorg.conf at runtime (nVidia cards)
Mike Mazur wrote: Hi, On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 05:44, Fernando Antunesfs.antu...@gmail.com wrote: I don't use xorg.conf in my notebook Lenovo T61, Intel 965GSM , xorg and xfce ~x86, gentoo 2.6.30 with KMS, anymore. Both kernel and X switch to 1280x800 resolution automatically, xinerama is disable. Interesting, so you don't have /etc/X11/xorg.conf file at all? Thanks, Mike If you have hal enabled and xorg-server-1.5 or higher, then you don't have to have a xorg.conf file. This is from what I have read. I have yet to get that hal thing to work here. If you are still on the old xorg-server then you have to have a xorg.conf file. Dale :-) :-)
