Re: [gentoo-user] Need networking help. Can't ping google.
ip_forward is set to one. Confirmed it with cat. I did this one time before. I found a iptables script and when I ran it, it just worked. The script is old and doesn't work anymore. The last time it was a gateway issue. I'm not sure this time. Are there any iptables rules on smoker? (iptables -L) I did this. From smoker, I pinged google. I got the IP address from that. I then tried to ping google BY IP address on lightening. It gives me the error ping: unknown host 72.14.299.99. So you set lights default route to be smokers 169.254 address, right? Can you ping smokers 192.168.1 address from light? Did you add a route on the modem so it knows it has to send packets to smoker to get them to 169.254? Or alternatively put NATing on smoker to hide the 169.254 addresses?
Re: [gentoo-user] Need networking help. Can't ping google.
=== On Fri, 12/10, Dale wrote: === I did this. From smoker, I pinged google. I got the IP address from that. I then tried to ping google BY IP address on lightening. It gives me the error ping: unknown host 72.14.299.99. === That's a different error. That is not a valid address. So then, smoker is your router. But is your DSL modem also a router? Or do you have PPPoE terminating in your smoker? Your DSL modem is probably a router with NAT. It will need a static IP address back to your other network, next hop being smoker. Better would be to get a hub and connect all hosts (including modem, to it. -- Keith Dart -- -- ~ Keith Dart ke...@dartworks.biz public key: ID: 19017044 http://www.dartworks.biz/ =
[gentoo-user] Minimal kernel tree for building out-of-tree modules?
After I've built and installed a kernel and the in-tree-modules, is there a way to clean the kernel source/build tree down to the minimal set of files needed to build out-of-tree modules? I think you would end up with the same files that you would have after doing make modules_prepare in a clean source tree with the addition of the Module.symvers file. -- Grant
Re: [gentoo-user] Need networking help. Can't ping google.
On 10 December 2010 09:40, Keith Dart ke...@dartworks.biz wrote: === On Fri, 12/10, Dale wrote: === I did this. From smoker, I pinged google. I got the IP address from that. I then tried to ping google BY IP address on lightening. It gives me the error ping: unknown host 72.14.299.99. === That's a different error. That is not a valid address. So then, smoker is your router. But is your DSL modem also a router? Or do you have PPPoE terminating in your smoker? Your DSL modem is probably a router with NAT. It will need a static IP address back to your other network, next hop being smoker. Better would be to get a hub and connect all hosts (including modem, to it. As Keith says the easiest thing would be to go buy yourself a better ADSL router (because I suspect that you are running some cheap half-bridged ISP router) which will act as your ADSL modem, NAT router, DNS repeater, and LAN firewall, all-in-one. You should be able to pick up a cheap cisco or netvanta from ebay. However, you ain't going to learn much network-wise if you do that. So, instead you may want to run something like this on smoker (check man iptables for details): iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE Using the man pages you can add --match parameters to only allow your lightning box to be processed and anything else dropped. You will also need to set an additional subnet for your LAN (between your smoker and lightning boxen). So all together it could look like this: Smoker: NIC eth2 ip: 192.168.1.X Netmask : 255.255.255.0 Broadcast: 192.168.1.255 gateway: 192.168.1.254 (that's your ADSL router's IP address) for DNS use your ADSL router's IP address (if it acts as a local resolver) or your ISP's DNS server address, or OpenDNS ip addresses (google for it). Then you need to set up your second smoker NIC like this: NIC eth0 ip: 192.168.2.X (different subnet than your DSL network) Netmask : 255.255.255.0 Broadcast: 192.168.2.255 gateway: 192.168.1.254 (also your ADSL router's IP address) Finally, on your lightning box you need this: NIC ethX ip: 192.168.2.XX (same subnet as your eth0 NIC on smoker, but different IP of course) Netmask : 255.255.255.0 Broadcast: 192.168.2.255 gateway: 192.168.2.X (same as the IP of your eth0 NIC on smoker) for DNS set up /etc/resolv.conf on lightning the same as for smoker above. The above should hopefully work. -- Regards, Mick
Re: [gentoo-user] RAID6 for / ?
Am 09.12.2010 18:14, schrieb Neil Bothwick: On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 17:08:42 +0100, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: Wouldn't it be even more efficient (in terms of not wasting space) to create that 6-devices-RAID1 smaller, for /boot and a second array, with RAID6, for / ? Less space wasted, higher redundancy for / ... ? Since / only needs about 200MB, space isn't really an issue, and RAID1 gives the highest redundancy. The main reason I don't put / on a higher RAID level is that it adds the complication of another filesystem and partition on each drive. / + one LVM keeps it nice and simple. OK, I see your point. My / is usually bigger, it seems that you use other/more separate partitions/LVs for stuff like /var etc. Thanks for that, Stefan
Re: [gentoo-user] RAID6 for / ?
Am 09.12.2010 18:21, schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann: Put /boot on raid1, / on raid6. Don't bother with lvm - it is just another layer that can go wrong. You mean don't use lvm for / ? ... for other stuff it's very useful, isn't it? ;-) I never put / on lvm, yep. If Raid6 is like raid5 you should be able to have the kernel auto assemble everything, so no initrd is needed. Pay attention to the metadata format when creating the raid. Also have a look at stripe sizes. And stripe_cache_size. Thanks for your reminders. What exactly do you think of with stripes and sizes? You point at the performance-impact? large files vs. small files etc? Thanks, Stefan
[gentoo-user] Re: trouble with new gnome (~amd64)
On 12/09/2010 05:31 AM, Adam Carter wrote: Gtk-Message: Failed to load module gnomebreakpad: libgnomebreakpad.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory I'm still trying to find out who is looking for that library. The new version of bug-buddy no longer supplies that library, and when you run bug-buddy from a command line it prints that error So. bug-buddy is reporting that a library is missing that it used to supply? Doesnt sound right Indeed, it wasn't right -- all gnome apps cause the same error message. There is a gconf setting (presumably obsolete now) that asks gnome-settings-daemon to load the 'gnomebreakpad' module to handle crash reports. Unchecking that box in the gconf-editor silences the error message. GConf is scheduled to be replaced with some other gizmo in gnome-3.0 anyway. If gnome-3.0 turns out anything like kde-4.0 I'll be deleting it very quickly.
Re: [gentoo-user] RAID6 for / ?
On Friday 10 December 2010, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: Am 09.12.2010 18:21, schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann: Put /boot on raid1, / on raid6. Don't bother with lvm - it is just another layer that can go wrong. You mean don't use lvm for / ? ... for other stuff it's very useful, isn't it? no, I mean don't use lvm. It is a very compley, easily broken layer reducing data safety. There is no need for lvm with bind mounting and ln -s. If Raid6 is like raid5 you should be able to have the kernel auto assemble everything, so no initrd is needed. Pay attention to the metadata format when creating the raid. Also have a look at stripe sizes. And stripe_cache_size. Thanks for your reminders. What exactly do you think of with stripes and sizes? You point at the performance-impact? large files vs. small files etc? stripe size has nothing to do with big and small files. But choosing the wrong stripe size can impact your performance very, very badly. We are talking about abysmal performance, Challenger depht abysmal. XFS and ext4 - for both is a lot of documentation available about choosing the right stripe size. stripe_cache_size can be set in /sys and has a 4-5x performance impact on raid5 (where I tried it). A good size for me is 8192. For example.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: RAID6 for / ?
On Friday 10 December 2010, James wrote: Volker Armin Hemmann volkerarmin at googlemail.com writes: Put /boot on raid1, / on raid6. Don't bother with lvm - it is just another layer that can go wrong. If Raid6 is like raid5 you should be able to have the kernel auto assemble everything, so no initrd is needed. Pay attention to the metadata format when creating the raid. Also have a look at stripe sizes. And stripe_cache_size. Volker, http://www.acnc.com/04_01_06.html http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/RAID http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/RAID/Software Are these wiki pages, up to date?, Correct? Is it ok to follow? James http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/RAID/Software looks ok.
Re: [gentoo-user] Kernel doesn't use all of the available memory
On Thursday 09 December 2010, Helmut Jarausch wrote: Hi, I see a strange effect which puzzles me. I have two AMD64 (~amd64) Systems. Both have 8Gb memory installed as reported by their BIOS as well as by lshw. One is a somewhat older Opteron, the other one a recent Phenom II. But the output of 'free -m' differs significantly On the Phenom II there a total of 7738 Mb but on the old Opteron there a total of 6477 Mb only. The 2.6.36 kernel is configured nearly identical (just a different SATA driver). Has anybody an idea where this comes from? a) bios limitiation. Some bad bios implementations (even from expensive vendors) map the pci space into the 3.5-4gb or 7.5-8gb area. Stupid. b) onboard devices.
[gentoo-user] Re: Minimal kernel tree for building out-of-tree modules?
On 2010-12-10, Grant Edwards grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com wrote: After I've built and installed a kernel and the in-tree-modules, is there a way to clean the kernel source/build tree down to the minimal set of files needed to build out-of-tree modules? I think you would end up with the same files that you would have after doing make modules_prepare in a clean source tree with the addition of the Module.symvers file. BTW, I did find where the kernel's top Makefile says: @echo 'Cleaning targets:' @echo ' clean - Remove most generated files but keep the config and' @echo ' enough build support to build external modules' Unfortunately, that's not true. Trying to build an external module fails because linux/bounds.h is missing. :/ I guess you just have to do a make modules_prepare. -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! UH-OH!! We're out at of AUTOMOBILE PARTS and gmail.comRUBBER GOODS!
Re: [gentoo-user] RAID6 for / ?
Am 2010-12-10 16:41, schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann: On Friday 10 December 2010, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: Am 09.12.2010 18:21, schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann: Put /boot on raid1, / on raid6. Don't bother with lvm - it is just another layer that can go wrong. You mean don't use lvm for / ? ... for other stuff it's very useful, isn't it? no, I mean don't use lvm. It is a very compley, easily broken layer reducing data safety. ok hmmm There is no need for lvm with bind mounting and ln -s. I don't fully get that yet ... If Raid6 is like raid5 you should be able to have the kernel auto assemble everything, so no initrd is needed. Pay attention to the metadata format when creating the raid. Also have a look at stripe sizes. And stripe_cache_size. Thanks for your reminders. What exactly do you think of with stripes and sizes? You point at the performance-impact? large files vs. small files etc? stripe size has nothing to do with big and small files. But choosing the wrong stripe size can impact your performance very, very badly. We are talking about abysmal performance, Challenger depht abysmal. XFS and ext4 - for both is a lot of documentation available about choosing the right stripe size. stripe_cache_size can be set in /sys and has a 4-5x performance impact on raid5 (where I tried it). A good size for me is 8192. For example. Ah, yes, already found that and I will check that out soon. Thanks!
Re: [gentoo-user] RAID6 for / ?
On Friday 10 December 2010, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: Am 2010-12-10 16:41, schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann: On Friday 10 December 2010, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: Am 09.12.2010 18:21, schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann: Put /boot on raid1, / on raid6. Don't bother with lvm - it is just another layer that can go wrong. You mean don't use lvm for / ? ... for other stuff it's very useful, isn't it? no, I mean don't use lvm. It is a very compley, easily broken layer reducing data safety. ok hmmm There is no need for lvm with bind mounting and ln -s. I don't fully get that yet ... well, what is so 'great' about lvm? That you can shove around free space where it is needed. You can do the same with bind mounting. With the additional bonus that mount simply works. Unlike lvm. Btw, does lvm still eat barriers?
Re: [gentoo-user] Need networking help. Can't ping google.
Mick wrote: On 10 December 2010 09:40, Keith Dartke...@dartworks.biz wrote: === On Fri, 12/10, Dale wrote: === I did this. From smoker, I pinged google. I got the IP address from that. I then tried to ping google BY IP address on lightening. It gives me the error ping: unknown host 72.14.299.99. === That's a different error. That is not a valid address. So then, smoker is your router. But is your DSL modem also a router? Or do you have PPPoE terminating in your smoker? Your DSL modem is probably a router with NAT. It will need a static IP address back to your other network, next hop being smoker. Better would be to get a hub and connect all hosts (including modem, to it. As Keith says the easiest thing would be to go buy yourself a better ADSL router (because I suspect that you are running some cheap half-bridged ISP router) which will act as your ADSL modem, NAT router, DNS repeater, and LAN firewall, all-in-one. You should be able to pick up a cheap cisco or netvanta from ebay. However, you ain't going to learn much network-wise if you do that. So, instead you may want to run something like this on smoker (check man iptables for details): iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE Using the man pages you can add --matchparameters to only allow your lightning box to be processed and anything else dropped. You will also need to set an additional subnet for your LAN (between your smoker and lightning boxen). So all together it could look like this: Smoker: NIC eth2 ip: 192.168.1.X Netmask : 255.255.255.0 Broadcast: 192.168.1.255 gateway: 192.168.1.254 (that's your ADSL router's IP address) for DNS use your ADSL router's IP address (if it acts as a local resolver) or your ISP's DNS server address, or OpenDNS ip addresses (google for it). Then you need to set up your second smoker NIC like this: NIC eth0 ip: 192.168.2.X (different subnet than your DSL network) Netmask : 255.255.255.0 Broadcast: 192.168.2.255 gateway: 192.168.1.254 (also your ADSL router's IP address) Finally, on your lightning box you need this: NIC ethX ip: 192.168.2.XX (same subnet as your eth0 NIC on smoker, but different IP of course) Netmask : 255.255.255.0 Broadcast: 192.168.2.255 gateway: 192.168.2.X (same as the IP of your eth0 NIC on smoker) for DNS set up /etc/resolv.conf on lightning the same as for smoker above. The above should hopefully work. OK. I had a LONG day yesterday. I took a nap. I was getting a little goofy here. Before I try all this, what is the best way to undo everything I have done with this so far? I ask because I have tried two scripts and I don't know what all has been changed and what state things are in. I also noticed this. When I have lightening hooked to smoker and smoker hooked to the modem, I can't get to the internet until I restart eth2 which is what connects smoker to the modem. It acts like it is trying to use eth0 instead of eth2. The modem I have is a Motorola Netopia 2210-02. I took that info from the home page of the modem. Just looking at it, it's the little silver colored thing and I did pay almost $80.00 for that thing. It also says it has a DNS server and it is on. Thanks Dale :-) :-)
[gentoo-user] Re: RAID6 for / ?
Volker Armin Hemmann volkerarmin at googlemail.com writes: http://www.acnc.com/04_01_06.html http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/RAID/Software looks ok. Good to know. The next time somebody ask about RAID, I'll pop them up, as the RAID[leve] pages have really nice diagrams and explanations. thanks, James
Re: [gentoo-user] RAID6 for / ?
Am 2010-12-10 19:03, schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann: well, what is so 'great' about lvm? That you can shove around free space where it is needed. You can do the same with bind mounting. With the additional bonus that mount simply works. Unlike lvm. Btw, does lvm still eat barriers? dunno ;-) I am just used to LVM and it so far just works for me. but I am always learning ...
Re: [gentoo-user] Need networking help. Can't ping google.
=== On Fri, 12/10, Dale wrote: === The modem I have is a Motorola Netopia 2210-02. I took that info from the home page of the modem. Just looking at it, it's the little silver colored thing and I did pay almost $80.00 for that thing. It also says it has a DNS server and it is on. === Ok, that's good. Now just get a small (4 or 8 port) ethernet hub, and a few more CAT5 cables. Don't use the ethernet cable that came with the modem. Hook everything up to the hub (including modem) with the new CAT5 cables. On your hosts, emerge net-misc/dhcpcd and net-dns/openresolv. Clear everything out of /etc/conf.d/net file. Reboot your boxes. You should be good to go then. -- Keith Dart -- -- ~ Keith Dart ke...@dartworks.biz public key: ID: 19017044 http://www.dartworks.biz/ =
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Firefox 3.6.12 problem?
Peter Humphrey wrote: On Thursday 09 December 2010 14:32:57 Florian Philipp wrote: Probably an issue with your desktop theme. Try to switch it and maybe log-out/log-in. I'm not aware of having a desktop theme. I certainly haven't changed anything in that department. I may have to resort to deleting my user and creating another one. That is going to be one large pain. Meanwhile I'm playing with Chrome instead. Just rename it to .old then let it create a new one. If it works, then you know where to start. If it doesn't, delete the one it just created and remove the .old and try something else. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Kernel doesn't use all of the available memory
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 16:47:18 +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: a) bios limitiation. Some bad bios implementations (even from expensive vendors) map the pci space into the 3.5-4gb or 7.5-8gb area. Stupid. Although you usually change the BIOS settings to not act broken just to appease rubbish Windows drivers. -- Neil Bothwick If it's tourist season, why can't we shoot them? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] RAID6 for / ?
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:47:26 +0100, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: Since / only needs about 200MB, space isn't really an issue, and RAID1 gives the highest redundancy. The main reason I don't put / on a higher RAID level is that it adds the complication of another filesystem and partition on each drive. / + one LVM keeps it nice and simple. OK, I see your point. My / is usually bigger, it seems that you use other/more separate partitions/LVs for stuff like /var etc. Of course. If you're going to use LVM, you may as well put everything on it. -- Neil Bothwick With 7 billion people on earth chances are slim it will ever be *your* day. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-user] Anybody using xorg-server-1.9 yet
Hi, The subject pretty much says it all. Anyone using xorg-server-1.9 yet? I'm doing a install on a new rig and thought about just jumping ahead a little bit and not having to deal with hal so much. Anybody had problems with it yet? Works fine? Blows smoke? Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Anybody using xorg-server-1.9 yet
=== On Fri, 12/10, Dale wrote: === The subject pretty much says it all. Anyone using xorg-server-1.9 yet? === I'm using it now. Works fine. But of course that really all depends on what kind of video card you have and what driver you use. -- Keith Dart -- -- ~ Keith Dart ke...@dartworks.biz public key: ID: 19017044 http://www.dartworks.biz/ =
Re: [gentoo-user] Anybody using xorg-server-1.9 yet
Keith Dart wrote: === On Fri, 12/10, Dale wrote: === The subject pretty much says it all. Anyone using xorg-server-1.9 yet? === I'm using it now. Works fine. But of course that really all depends on what kind of video card you have and what driver you use. -- Keith Dart It's a Nvidia GT 220 from what I have right now. I think it uses the latest nvidia drivers. I also have the latest unstable kernel as well. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Anybody using xorg-server-1.9 yet
Apparently, though unproven, at 04:17 on Saturday 11 December 2010, Dale did opine thusly: Hi, The subject pretty much says it all. Anyone using xorg-server-1.9 yet? I'm doing a install on a new rig and thought about just jumping ahead a little bit and not having to deal with hal so much. Anybody had problems with it yet? Works fine? Blows smoke? Dale :-) :-) been working here just fine and dandy since 13 Sep -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
