Linux-Setup Digest #809, Volume #20 Mon, 12 Mar 01 04:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Is it really worth it ? ("CD & WL")
Re: Install new kernel (2.4.1) ("Sri Panyam")
Re: kernel panic : VFS : can not mount root fs (ingo korndoerfer)
Linux/Win98/Win2k triple boot ("John Moore")
Re: Linux/Win98/Win2k triple boot ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
RedHat 7.0 and Compaq PL 4500 ("Ole")
Re: kernel panic : VFS : can not mount root fs ("Eric")
kppp and RH7 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Is it really worth it ? (Michael Heiming)
Re: Is it really worth it ? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux, SHMMAX and Oracle (Ville Karaila)
Re: Is it really worth it ? ("Eric")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "CD & WL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is it really worth it ?
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 01:35:24 -0600
Well thanks Cedric.How many viruses does my Win box have? Zero.How many
viruses has my Win box had? None. Windows is hackable-so what.I've seen more
crashes/headaches in 3 days trying to get Linux set-up properly on my system
than I have seen with Windoze in 6 months. I dont care if Linux is more
difficult to hack-I need a functional system and what I am trying to
determine is whether the time I will need to spend is worth the trouble.
BTW-I finally got the sound drivers functioning- Now I compose this message
from Windoze because I now lose my ethernet connection every 5 seconds after
the sound drivers were installed. Don't get me wrong-I am NOT being
sarcastic or nasty towards you with what I say in this comment.
I am just really frustrated.I appreciate your reply but you didn't really
answer my question. CD
"cedric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <mpYq6.81$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "CD & WL"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> A few questions:
>
> How many virus programs are there for MS Windows?
> Tons.
>
> How many virus programs are there for Linux?
> None. You can't give Linux a virus unless you go out on the
> net as root.
>
> Why do most hackers run Linux boxes?
> It's very difficult to hack a Linux box.
>
> cedric
>
> > Hey all. This is nothing more than asking for opinions. I
> > am currently running Win ME and have been tinkering around
> > with Mandrake 7.2.
> > The setup I use consists of the following: Abit KT7A Raid
> > w/Duron800 oc'd to 1G,Maxtor 61G ata100 hdd, LS120,Turtle
> > Beach Montego2 (Aureal),Matshita cdrw,ATI Radeon 64 ddr,
> > Kingston KNE111tx nic and USR v90 courier modem (also have
> > dsl modem set up thru router). Oh,and a MS explorer
> > optical mouse. My question is simply: Is it really
> > worth the trouble ?
> >
> >
>
------------------------------
From: "Sri Panyam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Install new kernel (2.4.1)
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 07:45:28 GMT
Just go to:
http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Kernel-HOWTO.html
Infact after you download the sources, read the README file. It has
detailed steps as to what needs to be done.
Good Luck
Sri
Yarraman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:98grqb$ij4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'm a newbie with Linux and I want to upgrade my kernel from 2.21 to 2.4.1
> but don't know how.
>
> Can anyone give me a link to a page on the internet where I can learn how
to
> do it (in simple English!)
>
> Or can anyone tell me what procedure to follow (from unzipping the tar
file
> until rebooting the system with the new kernel (I use LILO))
>
> Thanx in advance
>
> Hans
>
>
------------------------------
From: ingo korndoerfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: kernel panic : VFS : can not mount root fs
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 08:42:55 +0100
got findpart and ran it !
this looks very cryptic to me. so , can i , from this, restore
my partition table ? and then, i guess, i have to write the partition
table onto my ram disk in rescue mode and tell linux somehow,
to use this new partition table ?
thanks to all for your help !!!
ingo
Findpart, version 3.95.
Copyright Svend Olaf Mikkelsen, 2001.
Searches for partitions type 01, 04, 06, 07, 0B, 0C, 0E, 82, 83,
plus Fdisk F6 and Lilo sectors. Information based on bootsectors
is marked B. If the disk is larger than supported by BIOS, the
supported part of the disk is examined. Disks are numbered from 1.
OS: DOS 7.10 WINDOWS 4.10
Disk: 1 Cylinders: 776 Heads: 240 Sectors: 63 MB: 5729
-PCyl N ID -----Rel -----Num ---MB -Start CHS- --End CHS-- BS CHS
0 - 0B 63 3072000 1500 0 1 1 203 42 57 B OK
473 1 83 63 4339377 2118 473 1 1 759 239 63 OK OK
473 2 05 8421840 241920 118 760 0 1 775 239 63 203 OK
675 1 82 63 256977 125 675 1 1 691 239 63 OK
675 2 05 1890000 1209600 590 696 0 1 775 239 63 571 OK
760 1 82 63 241857 118 760 1 1 775 239 63 OK
=====FAT CHS =Size Cl ==Root =Good =Rep. Maybe ==Bad YYMMDD DataMB
0 1 33 11423 4 180019 11423 0 0 0 1400
Partitions according to partition tables on first harddisk:
-PCyl N ID -----Rel -----Num ---MB -Start CHS- --End CHS-- BS CHS
0 1*0B 63 3069297 1498 0 1 1 202 239 63 NB OK
0 2 85 3069360 8663760 4230 203 0 1 775 239 63 OK
No signature CHS: 203 0 1
##########################################################################
> > i guess i am lacking tbe hasics. so why is the partition table toast.
>
> gpart doesn't use the paritiontable, it's trying to recover it.
> But at least some time ago, it didn't work well for logical partitions
>
> > isn't gpart reading the partition table ? and except for the error message
> at
> > the beginning, the big part looks sort of allright ? or is the error in
> the
> > beginning the point ? (see original post).
>
> Does it?
> I don't know how you partitioned your drive, but if you think it is correct
> you can try to restore it. But if it isn't correct, an attempt to restore it
> will
> most certainly destroy data.
>
> The fact that the partition check in the beginning doensn't show the
> logicals
> means that you paritiontable is no longer complete.
> I can only guess why that happened, but it sure isn't going to boot linux
> from
> a non-existing logical paritition.
>
> Go get findpart.exe and run it.
> Then post the results back.
> That's your best bet to recover all the data.
> (findpart is another tool that can help you recover your partitiontable)
> If you're not interested in that data, just reinstall linux.
>
> Eric
>
> > ingo
> >
> > Stephan Beal wrote:
> >
> > > Eric wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >> - prehistory : installed some new softare on my windows partition.
> > > >> (yeah, yeah .. i don't want to hear about it,
> > > >> but the linux version of the program
> > > >> gave me a segmentation fault)
> > > >> maybe the disk got a little too full there. not sure.
> > > >> abandonned this, logged out.
> > > >>
> > > >> - problem : can't get into my linux partition now anymore :
> > > >>
> > > >> partition check hda1 hda2 <>
> > > >> VFS : Cannot open root device 03:05
> > > >> Kernel Panic : VFS : Unable to mount root fs on 03:05
> > > >>
> > > >> what could be the problem ?
> > > >
> > > > Your partitiontable got toasted
> > > > And I guess you never wrote the table down on a piece of paper?
> > > > Then start sweating
> > >
> > > Not necessarily -
> > > 1) if you built a new kernel, you probably forgot to build the correct
> > > filesystem support in (NOT as a module). I've found that the 2.4.0
> kernel
> > > (at least the copy I got) didn't have ext2 built in by default, which is
> > > lame, lame, lame.
> > >
> > > 2) If you moved your partitions around, then you need to type this to
> fix
> > > your kernel, then re-run lilo (just to be safe):
> > > rdev [/dev/bootpartition] kernel_file
> > > (maybe I have those parameters swapped.)
> > >
> > > > <trimmed gpart messages>
> > >
> > > All respect to gpart. It saved my buttox when I mangled my partition
> table
> > > once about a year ago.
> > >
> > > ----- Stephan Beal - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > I speak for myself, not my employer.
> > > No warranty. Slippery when wet. Your Mileage May Vary.
> > > Contents may be hot. You Have Been Warned.
> >
------------------------------
From: "John Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux/Win98/Win2k triple boot
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 02:06:00 -0600
I am *seriously* considering Linux, but havn't found any howto's that answer
my specific mulit-boot config.
I currently have Win 98 SE in a primary partition (boot.ini, ntldr, etc are
there) and Win 2k in a logical partition in a dual boot configuration. I
would like to install Linux (preferably Redhat, but whichever distribution
involves the least hassle) so that one boot menu will access all systems.
Is this possible without a major headache, or having to reinstall either
windows system?
Thanks in advance
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux/Win98/Win2k triple boot
Date: 12 Mar 2001 08:24:43 GMT
John Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I currently have Win 98 SE in a primary partition (boot.ini, ntldr, etc are
> there) and Win 2k in a logical partition in a dual boot configuration. I
> would like to install Linux (preferably Redhat, but whichever distribution
> involves the least hassle) so that one boot menu will access all systems.
If I understand correctly you are using NT boot loader, then, you
can use the same to boot linux (there is an How-To, but I don't
remember the name). When you are installing, remember
to *not* install LILO.
See also the Dos-Win-To-Linux-HOWTO for a quick introduction to
how to use Linux (and avoid some headache...).
Davide
------------------------------
From: "Ole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RedHat 7.0 and Compaq PL 4500
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 09:41:31 +0100
Hi.
Have anyone installed RedHat 7.0 on a Compaq PL 4500? I have tried, and I
did'nt succeed. My PL 4500 is equipped with a Compaq SMART-2/E array
controller (on which the disks are connected) and a Compaq 32-bit Fast and
Wide SCSI-2/E controller (on which the CD-drive is connected). The problem I
run into is that I have no driver for the Compaq 32-bit Fast and Wide
SCSI-2/E controller. Does anyone know about such a driver?
Regards
Ole
------------------------------
From: "Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: kernel panic : VFS : can not mount root fs
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 09:44:36 +0100
> got findpart and ran it !
Very good.
> this looks very cryptic to me. so , can i , from this, restore
> my partition table ?
I do hope so, but I never had to restore a table from this myself.
( I keep hardcopies of my partitiontables: you should do this too in the
future)
If Svend-Olaf is watching, he may translate the output for you.
Unfortunately it looks a bit messy to me.
So I won't even try to interpret this (It probably wouldn't help you)
Wait a few days to see if svend-olaf picks up this thread, if not,
try to contact him directly .
> and then, i guess, i have to write the partition
> table onto my ram disk in rescue mode and tell linux somehow,
> to use this new partition table ?
>
> Findpart, version 3.95.
> Copyright Svend Olaf Mikkelsen, 2001.
>
> Searches for partitions type 01, 04, 06, 07, 0B, 0C, 0E, 82, 83,
> plus Fdisk F6 and Lilo sectors. Information based on bootsectors
> is marked B. If the disk is larger than supported by BIOS, the
> supported part of the disk is examined. Disks are numbered from 1.
>
> OS: DOS 7.10 WINDOWS 4.10
These partitions don't appear to be contiguous to me, which I doubt
was the case with the original table. Some even appear to overlap!
> Disk: 1 Cylinders: 776 Heads: 240 Sectors: 63 MB: 5729
>
> -PCyl N ID -----Rel -----Num ---MB -Start CHS- --End CHS-- BS CHS
> 0 - 0B 63 3072000 1500 0 1 1 203 42
57 B OK
> 473 1 83 63 4339377 2118 473 1 1 759 239 63
OK OK
> 473 2 05 8421840 241920 118 760 0 1 775 239 63
203 OK
> 675 1 82 63 256977 125 675 1 1 691 239
63 OK
> 675 2 05 1890000 1209600 590 696 0 1 775 239 63 571
OK
> 760 1 82 63 241857 118 760 1 1 775 239
63 OK
I can't make anything out of the next.
> -----FAT CHS -Size Cl --Root -Good -Rep. Maybe --Bad YYMMDD DataMB
> 0 1 33 11423 4 180019 11423 0 0 0 1400
>
> Partitions according to partition tables on first harddisk:
>
> -PCyl N ID -----Rel -----Num ---MB -Start CHS- --End CHS-- BS CHS
> 0 1*0B 63 3069297 1498 0 1 1 202 239 63 NB OK
> 0 2 85 3069360 8663760 4230 203 0 1 775 239 63 OK
> No signature CHS: 203 0 1
>
> ##########################################################################
Good luck,
Eric
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: kppp and RH7
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 08:43:38 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
::
Request-Remailing-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
##
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: test-do not read
Newsgroups: alt.test
X-No-Archive: Yes
I had Kppp working with RH6 no probs. An 'upgrade' to RH7 caused a
few minor unrelated problems so I decided to do an 'install'. That
fixed the other problems but I cannot use Kppp as a user. As 'root' I
have set up Kppp to dial & connect OK; but if I try to use Kppp as a
'user' it asks for the 'root' passwd. As installed Kppp runs with perm
755 although the Help file says it it runs as SUID. I have changed
perm to 4755 without success and also have the /etc/kppp.allow file in
place . ??????????? HELP
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 09:51:59 +0100
From: Michael Heiming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is it really worth it ?
CD & WL wrote:
>
> Hey all. This is nothing more than asking for opinions. I am currently
> running Win ME and have been tinkering around with Mandrake 7.2.I am getting
> really frustrated trying to make my equipment work properly and get the
> Linux drivers loaded properly.I am obviously tired of Windoze and want to
> try Linux with all the capabilities it has to offer. The setup I use
> consists of the following: Abit KT7A Raid w/Duron800 oc'd to 1G,Maxtor 61G
> ata100 hdd,
> LS120,Turtle Beach Montego2 (Aureal),Matshita cdrw,ATI Radeon 64 ddr,
> Kingston KNE111tx nic and USR v90 courier modem (also have dsl modem set up
> thru router). Oh,and a MS explorer optical mouse. As you can see by my list,
> I will be installing garbage for awhile to make these devices work properly
> and have wasted several hours today trying to get sound configured with no
> luck (constant crashes following directions with Aureal linux drivers 1.1.2)
> Maybe I am just impatient but after dicking around with the sound drivers,to
> no avail,and looking forward to the same headaches with my other
> components,I am about ready to stick with Windows.My question is simply:
> Is it really worth the trouble ?
Hello,
depends on what you want to achive, if all you do, is surfing the web, write
some mails and things like this, it's probably not worth, as M$ can do this.
But if you would like to know how your machine works, how TCP/IP works and
everything else, Linux is the way to go...:-)
The learning phase is very long and there always will be things you havn't
even heard about, even if you use it for years, but you can figure it all out.
There is no registry which hides stuff from you and isn't fully documented.
You need to get some knowledge about system administration, read tons of
manpages/HowTo/books and other stuff, but after some times (running Linux only),
you will regocnize, sitting in front of a M$ whatever box:
Wow, is this system poor, just sitting around and clicking/booting all day,
why does everyone use something as crappy as this, where is my bash?...:-)
Good luck
Michael Heiming
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Is it really worth it ?
Date: 12 Mar 2001 09:00:39 GMT
CD & WL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<ZAP>
> Maybe I am just impatient but after dicking around with the sound drivers,to
> no avail,and looking forward to the same headaches with my other
> components,I am about ready to stick with Windows.My question is simply:
> Is it really worth the trouble ?
Well, that's depend. If I understand correctly, you have some "strange"
hardware that can be not completely supported by linux yet. If your
needs are currently satisfied by Windows, stick with it.
Maybe is better if you wait until your hardware is completely supported
or you discover what the problem can be (sometimes is not so
easy). If all you get from your effort of using linux is a big headache,
then is not worth...
Davide
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ville Karaila)
Crossposted-To: comp.databases.oracle.server
Subject: Re: Linux, SHMMAX and Oracle
Date: 12 Mar 2001 09:00:46 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nuno Souto) writes:
>On 19 Feb 2001 10:33:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ville Karaila)
>wrote:
>>
>>>Which you can do. Get heaps of info on the "recompile the kernel
>>>bit", then do it once you are confident.
>>
>>And actually you have to recompile and link the dbms, so compiling
>>kernel is nothing.. ;) On Oracle 8i (8.1.5) you have to change
>>location of shm area which is allocated in an assembler file, which
>>can be generated by tool included.. This was a common procedure on
>>solaris versions, but I think I was first person (at least in finland)
>>to do this for linux version above.. I can say I was not quite happy
>>to do that but don't worry. You can always restore binaries from
>>backup.. :^)
>>
>Not if you just change SHMMAX. That's the max size of a single segment
>of shared memory. You don't need to re-link the kernel if that
>changes, it will just use it. At least in all the UNIXs I've worked
>with, would surprise me if that was the case with Linux?
Hmm.. I mean re-linking DBMS.. But I think that might be neccessary on
only some systems. It depends on SHM usage. But, on RH 6.0 or 6.2 that was
neccessary while the absolute location of the oracle SHM block is
hard-wired. I don't know why, but that is matter on linux 8.1.5. Maybe later
versions do that less braindead way.. ;)
And if I remember correct, linux (at least 2.0.x ?) must be recompiled
and linked if SHMMAX changes. At least to be on safe side.. :(
>>
>>Only limitation is that the SGA "fragments" while all processes see the
>>same address space (at least I figured out that way?), so if you
>>increase the limit, it is more likely that there exists a _large_
>>enough segment.
>Yes. More or less what happens. The more the SGA "fragments" across
>segments, the more impact on performance. But we're talking a very
>small factor, only relevant in very heavily used systems (although I
>once read somewhere that in some versions of Solaris this is a *big*
>problem).
This is another reason to tune the starting point and size a bit.
While usually size is expected to be 32M, you can safely start oracle
SHM block on 64M and have one nice continuous block of 2Gb easily..
--
VK
------------------------------
From: "Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is it really worth it ?
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 10:03:41 +0100
> Well thanks Cedric.How many viruses does my Win box have?
lucky you
> Zero.How many viruses has my Win box had? None.
lucky you.
> Windows is hackable-so what.
Just wait until you get hacked, and lose some data you really needed.
(Same goes for viruses btw.)
(PS. linux boxes get hacked too, it's not a miracle OS)
> I've seen more
> crashes/headaches in 3 days trying to get Linux set-up properly on my
system
> than I have seen with Windoze in 6 months.
I have different expieriences,
It took me half a day too install win2k on a HDD, and it wasn't until I
decided to
install linux there that I found out why, a few bad sectors at the disk
start.
win2k never gave me any clues regarding this. It just failed.
> I dont care if Linux is more
> difficult to hack-I need a functional system and what I am trying to
> determine is whether the time I will need to spend is worth the trouble.
then it probably is not.
MS-office wont run on linux, nor will most of your games.
IE doesn't run either, so why bother.
> BTW-I finally got the sound drivers functioning- Now I compose this
message
> from Windoze because I now lose my ethernet connection every 5 seconds
after
> the sound drivers were installed.
Nice puzzle.
At least you have the source, and lots of logging info.
Now you an learn what happens, and you can even cure it.
Doesn't that sound appealing to you ;-)
> Don't get me wrong-I am NOT being
> sarcastic or nasty towards you with what I say in this comment.
> I am just really frustrated.I appreciate your reply but you didn't really
> answer my question. CD
If you have problems, post them here. We may be able to help you.
If you just come here to troll, you wont get much replies.
> > > Hey all. This is nothing more than asking for opinions. I
> > > am currently running Win ME and have been tinkering around
> > > with Mandrake 7.2.
> > > The setup I use consists of the following: Abit KT7A Raid
> > > w/Duron800 oc'd to 1G,Maxtor 61G ata100 hdd, LS120,Turtle
> > > Beach Montego2 (Aureal),Matshita cdrw,ATI Radeon 64 ddr,
> > > Kingston KNE111tx nic and USR v90 courier modem (also have
> > > dsl modem set up thru router). Oh,and a MS explorer
> > > optical mouse. My question is simply: Is it really
> > > worth the trouble ?
> > >
> > >
Don't bother.
Unless you like to play around with an OS,
when the setting-up of a good and stable system provides you fun,
when you like tuning an OS to your needs, instead of conforming to the
OS's demands, use linux, if not: don't bother.
Linux is not for you if you don't like to play with it.
(PS. as far as I can tell the hardware you mentioned, wil all work with
linux.
It may require some tuning though)
Eric
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.setup.
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-Setup Digest
******************************
