Linux-Development-Sys Digest #939, Volume #6 Wed, 7 Jul 99 23:14:23 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why not C++ (Mike McDonald)
Re: egcs idiocy (Kurt Wall)
Re: Linux 2.2 threads and GLIBC errors (Andreas Jaeger)
Re: multiple device with disks of different type (bill davidsen)
Re: PTHREADS kernel/user level threading? (bill davidsen)
Re: Why not C++ (Kurt Wall)
Re: Why we are still holding on to MS Windows (Ed Bruce)
Re: CD-ROM File Time Bug (Vlad)
Re: Why not C++ (Mike McDonald)
Re: diskless linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
embedded Linux and I2O... (William Ryder)
Re: multiple device with disks of different type ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: large executables on Red Hat 6.0 ("Frank V. Castellucci")
Re: CD-ROM File Time Bug (Terry Boldt)
Re: Memory handling with really large processes (> 6-700MB) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike McDonald)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Why not C++
Date: 7 Jul 1999 19:26:10 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaz Kylheku) writes:
> On 7 Jul 1999 18:15:36 GMT, Mike McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Craig Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> I spent several months writing a JVM for TwoWayTV/Cable&Wireless
>>> (embedded system application), so I've spent a shit load of time looking
>>> at the garbage collector issue.
>>> Craig.
> The trick is that to implement true garbage collection in Java, you have to
> gradually purge all of the program's text from memory. :)
If your assertion is true, why gradually and why is it tricky? Seems like
bzero()ing all of memory ought to work! :-)
Mike McDonald
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kurt Wall)
Subject: Re: egcs idiocy
Date: 7 Jul 1999 20:31:38 GMT
Erik de Castro Lopo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>SV wrote:
>>
>> zimage by gcc-2.7.2.3 374314
>> zimage by egcs-1.1.2 388066
So, use "-Os" to trade off size for speed.
>> one may ask why the hell one would want
>> to use shitty compiler like egcs to bloat
>> already bloated linux code?
By what standards is it "shitty," pray tell?
Kurt
--
If only I could be respected without having to be respectable.
------------------------------
From: Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.programming.threads
Subject: Re: Linux 2.2 threads and GLIBC errors
Date: 07 Jul 1999 21:41:47 +0200
>>>>> jlh writes:
> We've recently upgraded to the standard RedHat 6.0 with linux
> kernel 2.2 and libc-2.1.1 and, evidently, linuxthreads-0.8.
> When we recompile our threaded applications --- which
> work fine under RedHat 5.2 --- we introduce an intermittent
> (about 50% of the time) error. The error message that
> happens during exectution is always similar to this:
> test_cpp: error in loading shared libraries: /lib/libpthread.so.0: symbol
>__libc_waitpid,
> version GLIBC_2.0 not defined in file libc.so.6 with link time reference
This looks like an error in the dynamic linker. Since RedHat 6.0
doesn't contain libc 2.1.1 but a prerelease and some fixes have been
made in the meantime to the dynamic linker, it might be that the
problem is already solved - but without a test program, I can't check
this.
> The actual symbol, in this case __libc_waitpid, sometimes changes
> but the error message stays the same. Does anyone have any
> comments or suggestions on where to find the source of this
> error?
Report this to us glibc developers with the `glibcbug' program
providing a test program so that we can reproduce it (it's ok if I
have to run the program ten times to see a failure - but without a
test program I fear we can't help).
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
for pgp-key finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bill davidsen)
Subject: Re: multiple device with disks of different type
Date: 7 Jul 1999 20:37:01 GMT
In article <7lbchk$l5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Junichi SAITO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| I sent a similar mail to comp.os.linux.hardware and already got
| an answer. I however still have some doubt, so here goes it.
|
| According to Software Raid mini HOWTO, maintained by Linas Vepstas,
| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Software RAID will work with any disk controller
| (IDE or SCSI) and any disks." Is this absolutely true of any
| combination of any disks of any types ?
stuff in the 2.[012] kernel does linear and raid-0 with the mdtools,
mdadd, etc. There is a package called raidtools, which only works with a
few versions of the kernel, 2.0.36 and 2.2.6, and then only with the
application of several hundred kilobytes of patches. And the last I
heard from a developer the error recovery of raid-[145] still isn't
right.
I have no idea what if anything works properly with 2.3.x, but if you
are trying raidtools I suggest going back to mdtools instead, since they
have limited but adequate functionality for what you want.
When md first came out I tried it on four 40MB SCSI, an 850MB IDE and a
40MB RLL drive. Worked. Slow, mind you, but worked, at least to my
limited testing. Yes, I had to change the max devices from 4 to 8.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
The Internet is not the fountain of youth, but some days it feels like
the fountain of immaturity.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bill davidsen)
Subject: Re: PTHREADS kernel/user level threading?
Date: 7 Jul 1999 20:20:12 GMT
In article <7lhjdn$17f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| [Hugo tetreault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
| > This is called "process cpu affinity" and I don't think Linux support
| > it.
|
| Linux *does* support process affinity -- in that there is a penalty
| (oddly enough it is called PROC_CHANGE_PENALTY or some such) for
| scheduling a process on a different CPU -- but you are right that there
| is no way to control this from user space, i.e. "dedicate" a CPU to a
| particular process.
Linux preferentially uses the same cpu, but doesn't wait long for it to
become available, since the longer it runs in another process the less
likely you are to find anything useful in cpu cache.
You can play with the preference value, but it's one of the things which
has been pretty well tuned.
Note that binding a process to a processor (use when available) and
binding a processor to a process (sit idle when not needed) are two
different special case solutions. Other than real time when you need a
cpu right now I think Linux does it optimally, at least in terms of
getting the jobs done in minimal clock time.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
The Internet is not the fountain of youth, but some days it feels like
the fountain of immaturity.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kurt Wall)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Why not C++
Date: 7 Jul 1999 20:24:47 GMT
On 7 Jul 1999 18:15:36 GMT, Mike McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Craig Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
[...]
>> I spent several months writing a JVM for TwoWayTV/Cable&Wireless
>> (embedded system application), so I've spent a shit load of time looking
>> at the garbage collector issue.
>> Craig.
>
> A whole "several months"? Wow! I suggest you check out
...and the rest of his life doing maintenance. ;-)
>cs.utexas.edu:/pub/garbage for real information on garbage collection of all
>kinds, including malloc/free and their relative performance.
Hey, thanks for the link.
Kurt
--
If only I could be respected without having to be respectable.
------------------------------
From: Ed Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Why we are still holding on to MS Windows
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 15:28:24 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
George MacDonald wrote:
> I was running two X screens on a Sun system over 12 years ago!!
I remember the first time I had a setup with two monitors and was able
to scroll my pointer accross the monitors. I had it setup so that when I
scrolled off the top of one monitor it showed up at the bottom of the
other. That had to be about 12 years ago also on a Sun system with X.
later,
Ed
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vlad)
Subject: Re: CD-ROM File Time Bug
Date: 7 Jul 1999 17:01:26 GMT
Terry Boldt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I have recently encoutered a problem with listing file times on the
: CD-ROM. I have
: cross checked the file times between MS-DOS 6.2, OS/2 and Linux. MS-DOS
: and OS/2
: both agree on the time a file was written to the CD-ROM, but Linux adds
: 3 hours
: to the time. For example under MS-DOS and OS/2 the file time is listed
: as 1:15 pm.
: Using the command 'ls -l --full-time /mnt/cdrom' under Linux the file
: time is listed
: as 16:15. Since both MS-DOS and OS/2 (using both the 'dir' and the GNU
: 'ls -l --full-time' commands) both agree on the file time, I assume that
: Linux as the
: odd man out is incorrect. I have checked the file times listed under
: Linux for files
: on the hard disk and floppies, they are correct for when I created the
: files. So I assume
: that the problem is in the CD-ROM driver.
: I am using Red Hat 5.2 and the CD-ROM is an IDE ATAPI drive.
: Is this a known bug and if so has the problem been corrected?
This is not a bug... it a feature... All UNIX like systems keep
time in UTC format and all application program use getlocaltime function
to convert system time to localtime using your TZ variable... ( Also you
don't have to worry about restting system time to adjust for daylight
savings etc... If you want to get rid of this behaviour change your
TZ to UTC.
Vlad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike McDonald)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Why not C++
Date: 7 Jul 1999 18:15:36 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Craig Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Compiled Java would have extra overheads relative to C++,
> due mostly to the absense of a delete operator. You have to either:
You think delete() is quick?
> Strangly hidden in your sig, your last comment is right - to an extent, but
> the garbage collectors are still going to hammer performance no matter
> how clever they are, it's just a matter of how they do it....
> I spent several months writing a JVM for TwoWayTV/Cable&Wireless
> (embedded system application), so I've spent a shit load of time looking
> at the garbage collector issue.
> Craig.
A whole "several months"? Wow! I suggest you check out
cs.utexas.edu:/pub/garbage for real information on garbage collection of all
kinds, including malloc/free and their relative performance.
Mike McDonald
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: diskless linux
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 22:22:24 GMT
In comp.os.linux.development.system Piyush Agarwal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I need to boot diskless linux from flash. I saw etherboot and netboot
> but they require a server on the net. I have a standalone linux board
> with no NFS server. The kernel image has to be burnt in flash and if any
> directory structure is required then it has to be created in flash or
> RAMDISK. Please advise on how this can be achieved.
> Thanks,
> Piyush
Check out the the Linux Router Project at www.linuxrouter.org
------------------------------
From: William Ryder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: embedded Linux and I2O...
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 13:44:05 -0400
Does anyone know of work being done to port Linux as a RTOS in an
embedded, I2O environment. That is, is there a Linux that will run on
embedded processors, complete with I2O API wrappers? If so, may I
request appropriate websites and or e-mail addresses for the developers?
Thanks,
Bill Ryder
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: multiple device with disks of different type
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 21:52:26 GMT
In article <7m0dpd$2950$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (bill davidsen) wrote:
> When md first came out I tried it on four 40MB SCSI, an 850MB IDE and
a
> 40MB RLL drive. Worked. Slow, mind you, but worked, at least to my
> limited testing. Yes, I had to change the max devices from 4 to 8.
That's just what I was wanting to know, a concrete example of this kind.
Your combination is far more heterogeneous than mine ( MDA IDE + Non MDA
IDE). So mine should work also. I'm using mdtools.
Thanks.
junichi
> --
> bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
> The Internet is not the fountain of youth, but some days it feels
like
> the fountain of immaturity.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: "Frank V. Castellucci" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: large executables on Red Hat 6.0
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 15:37:44 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message <7lvtjp$gg6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>I have a scientific model written in g77 that uses large arrays. I have
>Red Hat 6.0 with 512 Meg memory and 8 120 meg swap partitions to give
>me about 1.5 gig memory space. When I set constants so that my program
>takes
>up 800 meg it works fine but if I make constants so that it takes up
>970 meg it hangs a while and then segmantation faults at the prompt
>without getting to the first line which was a print.
Double Faults? Thrashing? Boundry condition for the OS? What is the code for
the
seqmentation fault? Machine problem? More info?
Curious : Does the implementation consider scalability? Or do you just buy
more memory?
Frank V. Castellucci
C.O.L. Consulting Ltd.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 19:50:02 -0400
From: Terry Boldt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: CD-ROM File Time Bug
Vlad wrote:
>
> Terry Boldt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> : I have recently encoutered a problem with listing file times on the
> : CD-ROM. I have
> : cross checked the file times between MS-DOS 6.2, OS/2 and Linux. MS-DOS
> : and OS/2
> : both agree on the time a file was written to the CD-ROM, but Linux adds
> : 3 hours
> : to the time. For example under MS-DOS and OS/2 the file time is listed
> : as 1:15 pm.
> : Using the command 'ls -l --full-time /mnt/cdrom' under Linux the file
> : time is listed
> : as 16:15. Since both MS-DOS and OS/2 (using both the 'dir' and the GNU
> : 'ls -l --full-time' commands) both agree on the file time, I assume that
> : Linux as the
> : odd man out is incorrect. I have checked the file times listed under
> : Linux for files
> : on the hard disk and floppies, they are correct for when I created the
> : files. So I assume
> : that the problem is in the CD-ROM driver.
>
> : I am using Red Hat 5.2 and the CD-ROM is an IDE ATAPI drive.
>
> : Is this a known bug and if so has the problem been corrected?
>
> This is not a bug... it a feature... All UNIX like systems keep
> time in UTC format and all application program use getlocaltime function
> to convert system time to localtime using your TZ variable... ( Also you
> don't have to worry about restting system time to adjust for daylight
> savings etc... If you want to get rid of this behaviour change your
> TZ to UTC.
>
> Vlad
How does the 'system' know that the time stored on the CD-ROM is UTC?
Does the standard for writing CD-ROM state that the stored time is UTC
time? And this is universally recognized by all?
I fail to see this as a "feature" when I want the same time reported on
ALL platforms. A platform in New York will report a time completely
different from a platform in Los Angeles on the identical CD-ROM. And if
the CD-ROM was recorded in Paris, both differ from the time the person
in Paris thinks it was recorded. For a hard disk, this 'correction'
probably makes sense, but for removable media, it would appear to give
nonsense. It would appear that for removable media, reporting the time
as recorded, without a correction would make more sense. On laptops this
could lead to novel results. If I backup a file to a floppy at Home on
the east coast and then fly (with my laptop and floppy) to the west
coast. Correct the TZ setting when I arrive so that the time displayed
makes sense locally. I then display the contents of the floppy directory
to verify the time on the file to ascertain that I have the correct
floppy and backup, the file time reported is going to appear completely
wrong since it has now been 'corrected' to west coast time with a 3 hour
difference. It would then appear to me that I have the wrong backup.
Then when I return home and reset the TZ setting and start searching for
that 'lost' backup and find that all of a sudden I had the right floppy
all along - who's crazy me or the laptop? All of a sudden this machine
which is supposed to make life easier has me jumping through hoops to
'correct' for its 'corrections'. Doesn't make sense to me - at least for
removable media.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Re: Memory handling with really large processes (> 6-700MB)
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 01:11:10 GMT
sir,
i can not help you with your memory problems, but i would be interested
in learning more about this cad program.
will it be offered to the public?
or is it "in house" only?
i assume it will be commercial software?
is it a mechanical cad? civil? architectural? other?
what is it called?
i followed the link but was not sure what i was looking for.
i have a web site for cad software and i'm always looking for new
additions.
thankyou
phrostie
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ole Jacob Taraldset <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My company has developed a CAD tool to accompany our CFD tool FLACS.
It
> is written in c/c++ and runs under HP, SGI, Sun and is also ported to
> Linux. If you load a large geometry into the CAD tool the process can
> become very large (close to 1GB, OK we have some major memory
leaks...).
>
> When the process becomes so large that it hits the roof it aborts with
> an out of memory message on HP, SGI and Sun, but on Linux it brings
the
> whole system to its knees. I loose complete control of the machine for
> 5-10 minutes and then the CAD process dies and I regain control of the
> machine. The problem is that it takes with it a random number of other
> processes. Sometimes just the wm, other times X and a lot of services.
>
> The CAD tool is of course run as a normal user. This should not
happen,
> right? I thought Linux, as any UN*X, protects processes from each
other.
> Since the machine doesn't die completely I guess the kernel it self is
> protected in a way.
>
> If you reply please also reply to my email address, as I'm not a
regular
> reader.
>
> Ole Jacob Taraldset
> GexCon AS
>
> --
> GexCon AS, Bergen, Norway <http://www.gexcon.com>
> Tel : +47 55574334 (office) +47 55558650 (home)
> Mob.tel. : +47 95080525 Fax : +47 55574331
> PGP key : <http://home.c2i.net/ojt/pgp.txt>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.development.system) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Development-System Digest
******************************
