Linux-Setup Digest #254, Volume #21 Fri, 18 May 01 06:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: don't run slocate if just run 5 minutes ago ("Peet Grobler")
Why oh why (disk partitioning) ("Peet Grobler")
Re: can anyone tell me why? ("Peet Grobler")
Re: Cd Writing Problem w/XCdroast ("Wayne Osborn")
Re: fresh LILO stops at 'L' (James Richard Tyrer)
Re: LILO 1024 cylinder limit (James Richard Tyrer)
Re: Redhat 7.1: Whay linuxconf not run on KDE? ("JP")
append_z in printcap ("Anders")
Re: Why oh why (disk partitioning) (Alexander Martinez)
Re: backup + repartitioning (John Thompson)
Re: Redhat 7.1: Whay linuxconf not run on KDE? (Luke Vogel)
Re: Why oh why (disk partitioning) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why oh why (disk partitioning) ("Duane Healing")
Kernel panic MDK 8 (weeble)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Peet Grobler" <peetgr at absa.co.za>
Subject: Re: don't run slocate if just run 5 minutes ago
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 09:06:52 +0200
Have a look at fcron (Can't remember the url, use a search).
It allows you to specify a job to be run after a certain amount of uptime,
that might be what you're looking for...
Dan Jacobson wrote in message ...
>Does your Linux distribution do this?:
>
>After a day or two of non use, I power up the computer, 5 minutes
>later slocate is run [via anacron], good. It is 3:47 AM.
>
>At 4:02 AM cron runs slocate again.
>
>There ought to be a check in these cron scripts: if the slocate
>database is newer than 12 (18?) hours, skip this run. I'm curious
>which Linux distributions have been so thoughtful.
>
>I used Mandrake 7.2.
>--
>http://www.geocities.com/jidanni Tel886-4-25854780 e-mail:restore .com.
------------------------------
From: "Peet Grobler" <peetgr at absa.co.za>
Subject: Why oh why (disk partitioning)
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 09:09:38 +0200
Hi there.
Why would one want to split your Linux over more than one filesystem? E.g.
something like the following:
/dev/sda1 /root
/dev/sda2 /usr
/dev/sda3 /home
/dev/sda4 /var
etc. What is the benefits of doing it like this? I mean, if one partition
runs out of space, it's hell to get it fixed. Why not just stuff everything
on one partition, voila, no space problems? Now, I've heard of many people
suggesting this, and I'd love to know why. There's gotta be a hidden benefit
I just keep missing.
Anyways, if you think you can convince me, what'd be the best setup for a
2GB disk? (Partition-size wise). PS: I need 128MB Swap.
------------------------------
From: "Peet Grobler" <peetgr at absa.co.za>
Subject: Re: can anyone tell me why?
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 09:11:30 +0200
man tune2fs
tune2fs allows you to change this value in the superblocks on the device.
Brad Rush wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Sometimes when I start my linux system (redhat 7.0) during the
>interactive startup it says:
>
>/ has reached maximal mount count, check forced
>
>can someone tell me why this happens
>
>and also a couple of minutes after x completes loading after logging in
>the hard drive goes crazy doing 'something' and everything else stops
>(im guessing due to lack of resources)
>
>whats going on??
>
>Thanks in advance
>
>brad
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
------------------------------
From: "Wayne Osborn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Cd Writing Problem w/XCdroast
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 16:03:23 +0800
In article <kl1N6.2303$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "don keith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Xcdroast and KonCD that are provided with the Suse version 7.1 are going
> to drive me nuts!
>
> I have configured my system and files exactly as shown in the Suse
> Application manual for Xcdroast and still can't burn a CD....
>
> After reading the Howto's for writing cd's and the instructions for
> using Atapi-IDE cd writers, I have been successful in getting both
> software packages to "act" like they work....I can create a cd.image
> file or create a master directory to write to cd, but when either
> program "writes" to the cd nothing is ever put on the cd. What is really
> puzzling is that while the cd is "writing" the red light comes on and I
> keep getting progress messages from the software that every thing is
> OK(?)
You will see the "red" light blink even when do a test-burn. Maybe that's
is all thats actually happening.
What output do you get from xcdroast, using the full debug output mode?
<rest snipped>
>
> Any help would be appreciated!
>
No sweat.
--
Wayne A. Osborn, SCADA Engineer.[dnar AT iinet DOT net DOT au]
Registered Linux User #212818. [2.2.16-22-Win4Lin-686] [i686]
4:00pm up 3 days, 3:56, 5 users, load average: 4.53, 4.24, 4.16
...All programmers are playwrights and all computers are lousy actors.
------------------------------
From: James Richard Tyrer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.install,linux.redhat.misc,comp.os.linux.redhat
Subject: Re: fresh LILO stops at 'L'
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 08:18:20 GMT
S P Arif Sahari Wibowo wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I just installed RedHat Linux 7.0 from CDROM, the installation went
> smoothly, but after the installation, I cannot boot from the fresh
> installed HD: LILO stopped at 'L'.
>
> The partition of /dev/hda is as such:
> 1 8MB /boot
> 2 128MB /
> 4 256MB swap
> 5 15GB /home
> 6 2.8GB /usr
> 7 1.2GB /var
>
> LILO installed in MBR of /dev/hda. This a full Linux system, no DOS /
> Windows partition at all in the system.
>
> Booting from CDROM works fine, from other HD (a smaller 700MB HD) works
> fine, from tomsbrt boot floppy works fine. However, a boot floppy created
> using lilo from the /dev/hda failed to boot, also stopped at 'L'.
>
> Here is what I tried:
>
> 1. from linux rescue, mount the hda & cd into it, do 'lilo -r . -v
> -v',successful, but no boot.
>
> 2. do dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda bs=446 count=1 -> hang, then do lilo
> again -> stopped at 'L'.
>
> 3. format & mkfs a floppy, install lilo on it. boot from floppy, LILO sill
> stopped at 'L'.
>
> 4. boot from DOS, do 'fdisk /MBR', -> boot stopped with 'partition error'.
> Install lilo again, back to 'L'.
Can you boot with the boot disk?
If so, check the file: "/etc/lilo.conf" It should look something like mine:
boot=/dev/hde
map=/boot/map
install=/boot/boot.b
default=linux
prompt
linear
timeout=25
image=/boot/vmlinuz
label=linux
append="mem=192M"
root=/dev/hde7
read-only
Note the line: "linear". If you don't have that, then add it and see if it
works.
JRT
------------------------------
From: James Richard Tyrer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.comp.linux,alt.os.linux.redhat,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.redhat
Subject: Re: LILO 1024 cylinder limit
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 08:25:55 GMT
"Rene M�rten" wrote:
> Also wrong :=)
> With the newest LILO you can boot from any position on your harddisk.
Don't you have to use "lba32" to do that?
JRT
------------------------------
From: "JP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.security
Subject: Re: Redhat 7.1: Whay linuxconf not run on KDE?
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 09:35:40 +0100
"Luke Vogel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JP wrote:
>
> > According to RedHat, linuxconf is depricated (something like that!) in
this
> > release so it's not part of the install which I found a bit annoying as
I
> > don't run X and there are no other real admin tools (except vi!).
> >
> > If you want Linuxconf you'll have to download it from
> > http://www.solucorp.qc.ca/linuxconf/
>
> There is a good reason that linuxconf is deprecated ... it's broken.
>
> There is no way known that it could keep up with the updates and
> improvements of the packages that it was supposed to administer.
>
> My suggestion would be to learn how to admin your box manually. That
> way you'll know exactly what your system is doing and why, and if things
> go awry, you'll know how to fix them.
>
> just my $0.02 + tax
Thanks for the $0.02. :-)
I'm still learning how to admin Linux but if there is an easy way to do sort
things out, I'll use it, Linuxconf was (sometimes) much quicker for the
mundane configuration tasks so if it's available (and working) I'll carry on
using it. If it doesn't do what I want, vi will.
J
------------------------------
From: "Anders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: append_z in printcap
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 11:13:17 +0200
Greetings!
How can I use the append_z key in /etc/printcap when my options include a
colon (:), if colon is used a a delimiter in printcap? The lpr command I use is like
this:
lpr -P lp -Z InputSlot:ManualFeed -Z PageSize:A4 file.ps
>From what I find of printcap information with append_z it looks like
InputSlot and PageSize is not needed so that I could append a line in
printcap like this:
:append_z=ManualFeed,A4:\
However, this does not select the manual feed when printing with lpr
like:
lpr -P lp file.ps
Any ideas?
/Anders
------------------------------
From: Alexander Martinez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why oh why (disk partitioning)
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 11:19:25 +0200
Hello,
Peet Grobler wrote:
> Hi there.
>
> Why would one want to split your Linux over more than one filesystem? E.g.
> something like the following:
>
> /dev/sda1 /root
> /dev/sda2 /usr
> /dev/sda3 /home
> /dev/sda4 /var
>
> etc. What is the benefits of doing it like this?
It is a good thing to keep some folders on separate filesystems. if something
goes wrong in one of this separate filesystems, you don't have a crashed root
partition (if that happens, then you have to re-install!!). So it is a good
idea to keep /tmp, /var, /home, /usr etc. separate. If /tmp crashes, then you
only have to repartition it and everything goes fine again.
> I mean, if one partition
> runs out of space, it's hell to get it fixed.
Thats right, but if you plan your partition sizes carefully before installing,
you probably have no need to worry about this. and if /tmp is full, you can
simply delete all files on it, you won't destroy anything.
> Anyways, if you think you can convince me, what'd be the best setup for a
> 2GB disk? (Partition-size wise). PS: I need 128MB Swap.
my suggestion is this:
/ 100MB
/boot 10MB
/tmp 200 MB
/var 100MB
/home 150MB
/root 50MB
swap 128MB
/usr remaining space
I used this setup for years, and it works just fine.
I hope my answer helped you.
Greetings
Alex
------------------------------
From: John Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: backup + repartitioning
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 20:54:37 -0500
Alexander Martinez wrote:
> I'm totally finished with that M$ crap. Win2k killed itself when I
> changed monitor refresh rate from 100 to 85Hz. Because I am a long-time
> Linux-user I decided to replace it with Linux, which lies already on
> some partitions on the same harddisk.
>
> following configuration:
>
> Disk /dev/hda: 255 heads, 63 sectors, 3649 cylinders
> Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 bytes
>
> Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
> /dev/hda1 * 1 3315 26627706 7 HPFS/NTFS (win2k)
> /dev/hda2 3316 3339 192780 83 Linux
> /dev/hda3 3340 3355 128520 82 Linux swap
> /dev/hda4 3356 3649 2361555 5 Extended
> /dev/hda5 3356 3373 144553+ 83 Linux (/home)
> /dev/hda6 3374 3385 96358+ 83 Linux (/var)
> /dev/hda7 3386 3391 48163+ 83 Linux (/root)
> /dev/hda8 3392 3649 2072353+ 83 Linux (/usr)
>
> I also have a 8 Gig drive as secondary ide (master), which I use als
> extra space for downloads or backups:
>
> /dev/hdc1 5708.35 (FAT32: wintrash space)
> /dev/hdc2 2739.02 (ext2: linux space)
>
> It took me several days to optimize my existing linux installation and I
> don't want to throw it away. Is there an easy way to clone my existing
> installation?
>
> After reinstallation I like to use /dev/hda entirely for Linux.
Why reinstall at all? If linux is already installed and working
on the machine, just make hda1
an ext2 partition and use it however you please. Be aware if you
change the number of partitions on the hda device you may have to
rdev the kernel to point to the new partition numbers for "/" and
swap.
--
-John ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
------------------------------
From: Luke Vogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.security
Subject: Re: Redhat 7.1: Whay linuxconf not run on KDE?
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 19:32:26 +1000
JP wrote:
> Thanks for the $0.02. :-)
>
> I'm still learning how to admin Linux but if there is an easy way to do sort
> things out, I'll use it, Linuxconf was (sometimes) much quicker for the
> mundane configuration tasks so if it's available (and working) I'll carry on
> using it. If it doesn't do what I want, vi will.
Dont get me wrong, I used linuxconf when I first started too. I soon
got sick of linuxconf clobbering my manual configs as I tweaked my
systems the way I wanted them, and decided to /dev/null it!
It had its place, but I very quickly out grew it, and I think you'll
find the same.
--
Regards
Luke
======
ego.sh comes with a self installer. It is a single threaded multi
process daemon application thats facilitates access to the infamous
game "rat race". Warning uninstalling may enhance system performance.
======
PLEASE NOTE: Spamgard (tm) installed.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove NOSPAM ... obviously:)
======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why oh why (disk partitioning)
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 10:19:46 +0100
Reply-To: no_replyto@oursite
This message has been posted by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Ewart)
On Fri, 18 May 2001 09:09:38 +0200, Peet Grobler <peetgratabsa.co.za> wrote:
>Why would one want to split your Linux over more than one filesystem?
>E.g. something like the following:
>
>/dev/sda1 /root
>/dev/sda2 /usr
>/dev/sda3 /home
>/dev/sda4 /var
>
>etc. What is the benefits of doing it like this? I mean, if one
>partition runs out of space, it's hell to get it fixed. Why not just
>stuff everything on one partition, voila, no space problems? Now, I've
>heard of many people suggesting this, and I'd love to know why. There's
>gotta be a hidden benefit I just keep missing.
"How long is a piece of string?"
Different partitioning schemes are used on different systems. I
maintain around a dozen different systems, all with different partition
arrangements, because the systems are used for different things. You
will probably get a number of conflicting answers to your posting too!
Keeping /home on a separate partition means that if you decide to
re-install your system from scratch, you can leave /home untouched,
containing all your "user" files. Occasionally, the same argument can
be used for /usr/local (where software that _you_ compile and install is
generally put).
If a server has a heavy load of email, news etc., it can be worth
putting /var on a separate partition for performance reasons.
Occasionally, putting /usr on a separate partition makes sense, because
once your system is up and running, you may wish to mount it read-only
to avoid trashing it.
Sometimes, putting /boot (not /root) on a separate partition is
necessary, with older BIOSes or older systems, in order to be able to
boot of a large disk. You rarely need more than 20MB for /boot, though.
I agree with you comment that if one partition runs out of space, it can
be annoying to know that you have space elsewhere lying unused. A
carefully planned partition scheme should probably avoid that. Remember
that /usr will only grow in size if you install more software, /home has
the potential to grow very large, but all of my comments here depend on
what you want to use the system for.
>Anyways, if you think you can convince me, what'd be the best setup for a
>2GB disk? (Partition-size wise). PS: I need 128MB Swap.
This is almost impossible to answer without knowing the sort of thing
you want to use the system for, the Linux distribution you're proposing
to install, number of users, general spec of the system etc.
Having said that, it almost always make sense to put /home on a separate
partition, especially if you're still "experimenting" with Linux.
Perhaps give it 1GB, and allocate all remaining space to /. Note that
the remaining 1GB should be sufficient to house a reasonable Linux
distribution, but you may want to be a little careful not to install
every last package ...
Dave.
--
P.S. Apologies for the spam-trapped headers - they are added by my
outgoing news server and I have no control over them.
--
Dave Ewart
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Computing Manager
ICRF Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Oxford UK
------------------------------
From: "Duane Healing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why oh why (disk partitioning)
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 09:43:05 GMT
On a single-user desktop machine the only one I'd split off would be
/home. That way I could do a complete OS upgrade/reinstall/change and keep
all my data and stuff intact.
On a multi-user system, especially one on the net. Having /var separate is
a really good idea because if you're getting DOS'ed or something else is
screwy your logfiles filling all available space don't fill / and lock you
out of your machine. Another good practice is to make it so that any place
that normal users have write permission to is not on /, therefore /tmp and
probably /usr would be separate.
As with most configuration options, how it should be set depends on the
application and where you feel comfortable in the trade-off between
security and convenience.
--
-Duane
-DNAware SoftLabs
In a feverish moment of semi-lucidity, "Peet Grobler" <peetgr at
absa.co.za> flailed at the keyboard thusly:
> Hi there.
> Why would one want to split your Linux over more than one filesystem?
> E.g. something like the following:
> /dev/sda1 /root
> /dev/sda2 /usr
> /dev/sda3 /home
> /dev/sda4 /var
> etc. What is the benefits of doing it like this? I mean, if one
> partition runs out of space, it's hell to get it fixed. Why not just
> stuff everything on one partition, voila, no space problems? Now, I've
> heard of many people suggesting this, and I'd love to know why. There's
> gotta be a hidden benefit I just keep missing. Anyways, if you think you
> can convince me, what'd be the best setup for a 2GB disk?
> (Partition-size wise). PS: I need 128MB Swap.
------------------------------
From: weeble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Kernel panic MDK 8
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 10:55:29 +0100
Up until yesterday I had :
partition 1 - NTFS
2 - Ext2 /
3 - swap
4 - Ext2 /home
5 - Fat32
booting Mandrake from floppy.
I decided to reinstall Mandrake after having problems starting X. I am
installing from the fat partition, using Hd.img as before, but am
getting a panic, similar to:
Partition check:
hda: hda1 < hda5 hda6 hda7 > hda2
RAMDISK: Compressed image found at block 0
Invalid compressed format (err=1) <6>
autodetecting RAID arrays
autorun...
...autorun DONE
VFS: Cannot open root device 08:06
kernel panic: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on 08:06
I say similar to, because that was before I removed the only linux
partition visible in fdisk(dos) - hda3.
Windows 2000 boots ok. Partition magic won't load, giving the error
"Partition's drive letter cannot be identified". Fdisk tells me I only
have 1 NTFS and 1 FAT32 partition on the drive.
I would be grateful for any any advice on a way forward
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
