Re: kernel configuration file
Bernt Hansson b...@bananmonarki.se wrote: 2012-05-06 20:23, Robert Bonomi skrev: Including *every* loadable module, whether or not you actually use it. That's not really true, at least not for me, and I have not made any changes to the build environment. The loadable module that I actually use is bktr.ko, that one among others does not get built. I'd guess that bktr.ko is a 'third-party' module, found in a port, and not part of the base system. I found that every loadable kernel module in the base system is, or at least was, rebuilt. I haven't used make buildkernel in several years -- I use a 'monolithic' kernel, with everything compiled in, and loadable modules disabled. That way I always know _exactly_ what cabilities exist, and what security holes I _don't_ have to worry about. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: kernel configuration file
On Mon, 7 May 2012 15:01:31 -0500 (CDT), Robert Bonomi wrote: Bernt Hansson b...@bananmonarki.se wrote: 2012-05-06 20:23, Robert Bonomi skrev: Including *every* loadable module, whether or not you actually use it. That's not really true, at least not for me, and I have not made any changes to the build environment. The loadable module that I actually use is bktr.ko, that one among others does not get built. I'd guess that bktr.ko is a 'third-party' module, found in a port, and not part of the base system. No, it's part of the base system. I've been using bktr _in_ kernel for many years (FreeBSD 5 and 7), but since 8.0, it does not build anymore. However, the module _does_ correctly build. The documentation is in man 4 bktr. A typical use (with the PAL option, because I don't have Never The Same Color here), did work in the past like this: device bktr options BROOKTREE_SYSTEM_DEFAULT=BROOKTREE_PAL options BKTR_USE_PLL options BKTR_GPIO_ACCESS options BKTR_USE_FREEBSD_SMBUS Today, I need to use /boot/loader.conf with those entry bktr_load=YES Works for my Haupauge WinTV PCI video + tuner card, even the options (PAL) seem to magically work! :-) I found that every loadable kernel module in the base system is, or at least was, rebuilt. That's correct so far. Additionally, all components specified by the kernel configuration file will be rebuilt, which in case of _no_ alteration is the content of GENERIC. As I said, there may be parts that one can safely drop (e. g. WLAN, floppy, ISDN or sound for a server). -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: kernel configuration file
Carmel carmel...@hotmail.com wrote; In the Generic kernel configuration file for FreeBSD/amd64, if I do not have a floppy drive, is it safe to comment out this entry? # Floppy drives device fdc Definitely, yes. Are there any other entries that I could eliminate if I do not have a floppy drive? device atapifd obviouly. :) Also, according the the webcamd documentation, I need to have this in the loader.conf file. webcamd requires the cuse4bsd(3) kernel module. To load the driver as a module at boot time, place the following line in loader.conf(5): cuse4bsd_load=YES Is there a way that I can simply compile it into the kernel? Would a: device cuse4bsd# Required by webcamd entry in the kernel file work? I cannot find any documentation on that. The simplest approach for this is 'try it and find out'. If you use the traditional kernel-huild 'Configure/make depend/make' sequence, to rebuild the kernel -only-, its a matter of one minute or so on a _slow_ (486-class) machine. you'll either get a Configure error, a linker error, or it 'just works'. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: kernel configuration file
On Sun, 6 May 2012 08:08:31 -0500 (CDT) Robert Bonomi articulated: Carmel carmel...@hotmail.com wrote; In the Generic kernel configuration file for FreeBSD/amd64, if I do not have a floppy drive, is it safe to comment out this entry? # Floppy drives device fdc Definitely, yes. Are there any other entries that I could eliminate if I do not have a floppy drive? device atapifd obviouly. :) Thanks, I had not noticed that one. Also, according the the webcamd documentation, I need to have this in the loader.conf file. webcamd requires the cuse4bsd(3) kernel module. To load the driver as a module at boot time, place the following line in loader.conf(5): cuse4bsd_load=YES Is there a way that I can simply compile it into the kernel? Would a: device cuse4bsd# Required by webcamd entry in the kernel file work? I cannot find any documentation on that. The simplest approach for this is 'try it and find out'. If you use the traditional kernel-huild 'Configure/make depend/make' sequence, to rebuild the kernel -only-, its a matter of one minute or so on a _slow_ (486-class) machine. you'll either get a Configure error, a linker error, or it 'just works'. OK, now you lost me. I use the following basic sequence: make buildworld make buildkernel KERNCONF=CARMEL make installkernel KERNCONF=CARMEL make installworld I am sorry, but I am not fully comprehending what commands you want me to enter. -- Carmel ✌ carmel...@hotmail.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: kernel configuration file
On Sunday 06 May 2012 10:34:12 Carmel wrote: On Sun, 6 May 2012 08:08:31 -0500 (CDT) Robert Bonomi articulated: Carmel carmel...@hotmail.com wrote; In the Generic kernel configuration file for FreeBSD/amd64, if I do not have a floppy drive, is it safe to comment out this entry? # Floppy drives device fdc Definitely, yes. Are there any other entries that I could eliminate if I do not have a floppy drive? device atapifd obviouly. :) Thanks, I had not noticed that one. Also, according the the webcamd documentation, I need to have this in the loader.conf file. webcamd requires the cuse4bsd(3) kernel module. To load the driver as a module at boot time, place the following line in loader.conf(5): cuse4bsd_load=YES Is there a way that I can simply compile it into the kernel? Would a: device cuse4bsd# Required by webcamd entry in the kernel file work? I cannot find any documentation on that. The simplest approach for this is 'try it and find out'. If you use the traditional kernel-huild 'Configure/make depend/make' sequence, to rebuild the kernel -only-, its a matter of one minute or so on a _slow_ (486-class) machine. you'll either get a Configure error, a linker error, or it 'just works'. OK, now you lost me. I use the following basic sequence: make buildworld make buildkernel KERNCONF=CARMEL make installkernel KERNCONF=CARMEL make installworld I am sorry, but I am not fully comprehending what commands you want me to enter. Carmel; You don't need to build the whole world if you only need a kernel rebuild. just edit your kernel file and issue: cd /usr/src make kernel KERNCONF=CARMEL the 2nd line builds AND installs the new kernel. -- Mario Lobo http://www.mallavoodoo.com.br FreeBSD since 2.2.8 [not Pro-Audio YET!!] (99% winblows FREE) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: kernel configuration file
On 06/05/2012 14:34, Carmel wrote: Is there a way that I can simply compile it into the kernel? Would a: device cuse4bsd# Required by webcamd entry in the kernel file work? I cannot find any documentation on that. cuse4bsd is a third party module. This means that the sources aren't available as part of the base system, so making work as compiled-in code in the kernel will require you to create patches for your kernel source tree. Not impossible, but not trivial either. I don't know if hps@ has any plans to import it into the base system (I doubt it though), but it would only appear a few releases down the line even if he did. OK, now you lost me. I use the following basic sequence: make buildworld make buildkernel KERNCONF=CARMEL make installkernel KERNCONF=CARMEL make installworld I am sorry, but I am not fully comprehending what commands you want me to enter. If you don't update the system sources, then you can try a new kernel config without rebuilding world all the time. Like so: make buildkernel KERNCONF=CARMEL make installkernel KERNCONF=CARMEL shutdown -r now Just (re)building the kernel takes a lot less time than rebuilding the entire base system. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: kernel configuration file
On Sun, 06 May 2012 14:58:39 +0100 Matthew Seaman articulated: cuse4bsd is a third party module. This means that the sources aren't available as part of the base system, so making work as compiled-in code in the kernel will require you to create patches for your kernel source tree. Not impossible, but not trivial either. I don't know if hps@ has any plans to import it into the base system (I doubt it though), but it would only appear a few releases down the line even if he did. Thanks Matthew, that answered my question. It would seem that importing that module in the base system would be a wise idea; however, that decision is not mine to make. -- Carmel ✌ carmel...@hotmail.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: kernel configuration file
From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Sun May 6 08:36:52 2012
Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 09:34:12 -0400
From: Carmel carmel...@hotmail.com
To: FreeBSD freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: kernel configuration file
On Sun, 6 May 2012 08:08:31 -0500 (CDT)
Robert Bonomi articulated:
If you use the traditional kernel-huild 'Configure/make depend/make'
sequence, to rebuild the kernel -only-, its a matter of one minute or
so on a _slow_ (486-class) machine.
you'll either get a Configure error, a linker error, or it 'just
works'.
OK, now you lost me. I use the following basic sequence:
make buildworld
make buildkernel KERNCONF=CARMEL
make installkernel KERNCONF=CARMEL
make installworld
I am sorry, but I am not fully comprehending what commands you want me
to enter.
That's the 'modern' way.
Note: make buildkernel forcibly rebuilds everything, *EVERY* time.
Including *every* loadable module, whether or not you actually use it.
Which can be *really* painful on slow hardware (like 20+ *hours*, on a
486-class machine).
The 'traditional' custom kernel-construction sequence is:
cd /sys/{architecture}/conf
$EDIT {kernelname}C
config {kernelname}
cd ../../compile/{kernelname}
make depend
make
Then, 'make install', to install it as the defalt kernel to boot from,
or copy it to /boot/kernel/{foo} if you just want to test it by manually
selecting it at boot time..
For 'minor' kernel-only changes -- _I_ use custom kernels with =everything=
I need 'compiled in', *no* loadable modules, I'm in no mood to wait for all
the never used modules to be re-built -- The 'traditional' method is
_far_ faster. On a 700 mhz PIII, it is circa 90 seconds when I make a
simple configuration change -- e.g., add a 'device', change an 'option',
change a 'value'. *MOST* of which is the 'make depend' stage. the actual
'make' is under 10 seconds on _that_ hardware.
'make buildkernel' always works for every configuration. It does it by
being extremely pessimistic about what needs to be re-built. i.e., it
=always= assumes everything is out-of-date. This subverts one of the major
reasons 'make' exists -- to rebuild only the -minimal- set of things that
are affected by a given set of changes. It is 'foolproof', but the
skilled kernel builder pays an *incredible* performance penalty for
using something that attemptss to outwit the classical 'sufficiently
determined fool'.
I don't object (well, 'much', that is, see below) to 'make buildkernel',
or even to it being promoted in the Handbook as the 'preferred' means of
kernel building. It _really_ annoys that it is listed therein as the
-only- way. The 'traditional' methodology is fast becoming 'lost art',
along with the related knowledge of _how_ the process works,
'make buildkernel' is a black box, reminiscent of MS Windows 'magic'.
When it works, all is fine. when it breaks, you've got essentially no
information to work with about 'what went wrong'.
With the 'traditional' method, at least all the commands have manpages,
that tell you -what- each command does, in a fair amount of detail.
/rant
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: kernel configuration file
On Sun, 6 May 2012 13:23:08 -0500 (CDT), Robert Bonomi wrote: From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Sun May 6 08:36:52 2012 Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 09:34:12 -0400 From: Carmel carmel...@hotmail.com To: FreeBSD freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kernel configuration file On Sun, 6 May 2012 08:08:31 -0500 (CDT) Robert Bonomi articulated: If you use the traditional kernel-huild 'Configure/make depend/make' sequence, to rebuild the kernel -only-, its a matter of one minute or so on a _slow_ (486-class) machine. you'll either get a Configure error, a linker error, or it 'just works'. OK, now you lost me. I use the following basic sequence: make buildworld make buildkernel KERNCONF=CARMEL make installkernel KERNCONF=CARMEL make installworld I am sorry, but I am not fully comprehending what commands you want me to enter. That's the 'modern' way. The /usr/src/Makefile contains a comment header which explains the purpose of the make targets the current way supports. One should read it before starting, because it's quite informative on _that_ way of doing things (e. g. make kernel = make buildkernel installkernel). Note: make buildkernel forcibly rebuilds everything, *EVERY* time. Including *every* loadable module, whether or not you actually use it. Which can be *really* painful on slow hardware (like 20+ *hours*, on a 486-class machine). Maybe it's worth mentioning /etc/src.conf and /etc/make.conf and the man src.conf manpage. That is a comfortable means to avoid building (and therefore also installing) modules one does not need. The approach to configure all and _only_ the stuff I need in a custom kernel can be followed this way, and it will even work with the current make target way. Have no WLAN? So why bother building it? No ISDN? Omit it! For minor kernel changes (e. g. if you want to try some compile-time settings), this approach is really handy as it minimizes the time required. This consideration should _boost_ build+install times on current plentycore multiprocessors with tons of RAM! :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: kernel configuration
Chuck Swiger wrote: [snip] While it is true that you can comment out all but i686 and get a working kernel, you will experience reduced performance. There are a number of low-level assembly routines (cf sys/i386/i386/support.s such as i586_bcopy) that are conditionalized off of I586_CPU only, even though they provide an advantage on i686 platforms also. Thank you very kindly for this info tidbit. In my ignorance I had routinely built my kernels with only I686_CPU. Since the few boxen I have are all downlevel every niche I can squeak out some performance is sought after. Thanks indeed! -Mike ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: kernel configuration
In the last episode (Jan 15), Michael Powell said: Chuck Swiger wrote: While it is true that you can comment out all but i686 and get a working kernel, you will experience reduced performance. There are a number of low-level assembly routines (cf sys/i386/i386/support.s such as i586_bcopy) that are conditionalized off of I586_CPU only, even though they provide an advantage on i686 platforms also. Thank you very kindly for this info tidbit. In my ignorance I had routinely built my kernels with only I686_CPU. Since the few boxen I have are all downlevel every niche I can squeak out some performance is sought after. Thanks indeed! Actually, those functions are only enabled if the CPU is truly a 586-class processor. See /sys/i386/isa/npx.c , the npx_attach() function. There is a test for cpu_class==CPUCLASS_586, while most modern CPUs are CPUCLASS_686. -- Dan Nelson dnel...@allantgroup.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: kernel configuration
On Jan 15, 2009, at 11:31 AM, Dan Nelson wrote: Actually, those functions are only enabled if the CPU is truly a 586-class processor. See /sys/i386/isa/npx.c , the npx_attach() function. There is a test for cpu_class==CPUCLASS_586, while most modern CPUs are CPUCLASS_686. Thanks for the additional feedback, Dan. I remember some weirdness around things like the VIA C3 Centaur processors, which had CMOV feature and claimed to be a 686, but lacked SSE...not that those were an especially common case, but I still have one floating around. I see 686- and SSE2-optimized pagezero routines in support.s, but I don't see equivalents for bzero, bcopy, and copyin/copyout. Is something like generic_bzero() faster on a 686-class CPU than i586_bzero() would be? Regards, -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: kernel configuration
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 04:37:53PM +0100, icemaca wrote: this i386 version has cpu I486_CPU cpu I586_CPU cpu I686_CPU Basically you can comment all but I686_CPU since the others are for earlier x86 architectures. -ewald ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: kernel configuration
On Jan 14, 2009, at 10:15 AM, Ewald Jenisch wrote: On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 04:37:53PM +0100, icemaca wrote: this i386 version has cpu I486_CPU cpu I586_CPU cpu I686_CPU Basically you can comment all but I686_CPU since the others are for earlier x86 architectures. While it is true that you can comment out all but i686 and get a working kernel, you will experience reduced performance. There are a number of low-level assembly routines (cf sys/i386/i386/support.s such as i586_bcopy) that are conditionalized off of I586_CPU only, even though they provide an advantage on i686 platforms also. -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: kernel configuration
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Chuck Swiger cswi...@mac.com wrote: On Jan 14, 2009, at 10:15 AM, Ewald Jenisch wrote: On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 04:37:53PM +0100, icemaca wrote: this i386 version has cpu I486_CPU cpu I586_CPU cpu I686_CPU Basically you can comment all but I686_CPU since the others are for earlier x86 architectures. While it is true that you can comment out all but i686 and get a working kernel, you will experience reduced performance. There are a number of low-level assembly routines (cf sys/i386/i386/support.s such as i586_bcopy) that are conditionalized off of I586_CPU only, even though they provide an advantage on i686 platforms also. -- -Chuck so in any case it doesn't hurt to leave all 3. right? I have one last question though, is makeoptions DEBUG=g necessary if i am not debugging or is it always necessary to build the kernel properly? can i safely comment it out? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: kernel configuration
On Jan 14, 2009, at 12:44 PM, t-u-t wrote: While it is true that you can comment out all but i686 and get a working kernel, you will experience reduced performance. There are a number of low-level assembly routines (cf sys/i386/i386/support.s such as i586_bcopy) that are conditionalized off of I586_CPU only, even though they provide an advantage on i686 platforms also. -- -Chuck so in any case it doesn't hurt to leave all 3. right? Certainly it doesn't hurt. As far as I can tell, leaving 486 option increases the kernel size (very) slightly but there doesn't seem to be many things optimized for 486 which don't have better equivalents coded for 586 or 686. Leaving out the 586 option would not be desirable AFAICT I have one last question though, is makeoptions DEBUG=g necessary if i am not debugging or is it always necessary to build the kernel properly? can i safely comment it out? It can be commented out safely, yes. Regards, -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: kernel configuration failure
coriolinus wrote: I'm new to kernel building, so I followed the handbook's advice: cd to /usr/src, then make buildkernel KERNCONF=MYKERNEL. The kernel build process is failing mysteriously. The file it claims not to be able to find, /usr/src/sys/dev/aic7xxx/aicasm/aicasm.c, is sitting in my filesystem exactly where it should be. I'm not even sure why exactly it's trying to build that, as I'm pretty sure that I disabled the modules in the kernel configuration file which use that source. Actually, that's not the problem. The file which is not found is the compiler itself: gcc34:No such file or directory Maybe you've installed gcc 4.3 from ports, linked /usr/bin/cc to /usr/local/bin/gcc43 and then upgrade gcc? Any help getting this to work would be greatly appreciated. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Pietro Cerutti PGP Public Key: http://gahr.ch/pgp signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: kernel configuration failure
Actually, that's not the problem. The file which is not found is the compiler itself: gcc34:No such file or directory Maybe you've installed gcc 4.3 from ports, linked /usr/bin/cc to /usr/local/bin/gcc43 and then upgrade gcc? That doesn't seem right: [EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/src]$ which gcc34 /usr/local/bin/gcc34 [EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/src]$ su Password: [EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/src]# which gcc34 /usr/local/bin/gcc34 It's true that I installed gcc 3.4 from ports and put a line in /etc/make.conf: CC=gcc34 . However, it's on the path for both my user and for root; it seems weird that the makefile would lose track of it. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kernel configuration failure
coriolinus wrote: Actually, that's not the problem. The file which is not found is the compiler itself: gcc34:No such file or directory Maybe you've installed gcc 4.3 from ports, linked /usr/bin/cc to /usr/local/bin/gcc43 and then upgrade gcc? That doesn't seem right: [EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/src]$ which gcc34 /usr/local/bin/gcc34 [EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/src]$ su Password: [EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/src]# which gcc34 /usr/local/bin/gcc34 It's true that I installed gcc 3.4 from ports and put a line in /etc/make.conf: CC=gcc34 . However, it's on the path for both my user and for root; it seems weird that the makefile would lose track of it. Makefile doesn't lose it, it just redefines PATH; try using full path to gcc binary in /etc/make.conf: CC=/usr/local/bin/gcc34 Yuri ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Kernel configuration
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 11:42:02 -0500, Leon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I'm installing a BSD, and by documentation what provided, on the beginning of installation I should see Kernel Configuration screen. But after the system buts from my CD, it bring me to the Sysinstall Main Menu. It skip Kernel Conf. Should I configurate a Kernel? If yes, how can a get to this screen? You can [generally] wait until after the system is installed to configure a custom kernel. If you don't have any wonky hardware, the GENERIC kernel, installed by default, should get your system installed and running. When you do get to the point where you want to make changes to the kernel, http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/kernelconfig.html -- Joshua Lokken Open Source Advocate ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Kernel configuration
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 11:42:02AM -0500, Leon wrote: Hi, I'm installing a BSD, and by documentation what provided, on the beginning of installation I should see Kernel Configuration screen. But after the system buts from my CD, it bring me to the Sysinstall Main Menu. It skip Kernel Conf. Should I configurate a Kernel? If yes, how can a get to this screen? The documentation apparently refers to an older branch of FreeBSD (4.x), and you're installing 5.x. Most people don't need to disable or change device settings in order to boot FreeBSD, but if you do, you can set the appropriate hint.* variable at the loader prompt when you boot for the first time, and then customize the settings permanently in /boot/device.hints. Kris pgptJ8IEjiqBr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: kernel configuration file
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 06:09:56AM +0200, Gert Cuykens wrote: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/sound-setup.html where do i put this ? device sound i am using freebsd 5.3b7 The easier option is to put: snd_driver_load=YES in /boot/loader.conf. -- Jonathan Chen | To do is to be -- Nietzsche [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To be is to do -- Sartre | Scooby do be do -- Scooby ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kernel configuration file
did that doesnt work for me ? asus SK8N onboard sound acl850 if i am not mistaken. On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 17:21:30 +1300, Jonathan Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 06:09:56AM +0200, Gert Cuykens wrote: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/sound-setup.html where do i put this ? device sound i am using freebsd 5.3b7 The easier option is to put: snd_driver_load=YES in /boot/loader.conf. -- Jonathan Chen | To do is to be -- Nietzsche [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To be is to do -- Sartre | Scooby do be do -- Scooby ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kernel configuration file
[Please don't top post, it's really hard to read] On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 06:52:56AM +0200, Gert Cuykens wrote: i dont have any snd_*.ko files and the sound chip is suported by freebsd If you're running 5.3b7, they should be there; it comes with the default install. -- Jonathan Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- When all else fails, RTFM ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kernel configuration file
i did custom install :P On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 18:12:20 +1300, Jonathan Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Please don't top post, it's really hard to read] On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 06:52:56AM +0200, Gert Cuykens wrote: i dont have any snd_*.ko files and the sound chip is suported by freebsd If you're running 5.3b7, they should be there; it comes with the default install. -- Jonathan Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- When all else fails, RTFM ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kernel configuration file
So i guess this mean kernel compilation from src ? Or can i install them separately ? On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 07:13:47 +0200, Gert Cuykens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i did custom install :P On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 18:12:20 +1300, Jonathan Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Please don't top post, it's really hard to read] On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 06:52:56AM +0200, Gert Cuykens wrote: i dont have any snd_*.ko files and the sound chip is suported by freebsd If you're running 5.3b7, they should be there; it comes with the default install. -- Jonathan Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- When all else fails, RTFM ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kernel configuration
o According to LINT the CONF_FLAGS inhibit use of non-optimal function does this mean that my kernel will be optimized? If you don't know what a kernel variable or flag does, then don't use it. FreeBSD performs really well without configuring every last option. o I increased the process limits to MAXDSIZ=(1024 * 1024 * 1024) and DFLDSIZ=(1024 * 1024 * 1024). For an old PC like mine, is this a good idea? I mostly use my computer for programming. However, I'd also like it to be quite responsive at times. Any ideas? o PQ_CACHESIZE, what is it? what difference does it make if i set it to 512 and not 256? Don't bother setting either of these options. The defaults that the kernel uses are based on your available memory and are good starting points. o The options like: CPU_BLUE_LIGHTNING, CPU_ENABLE_SSE, CPU_FASTER_5x86_FPU, CPU_SUSP_HLT, NO_FOOF_HACK. Are they all applicable to my CPU? No. o USER_LDT, what is this? is it good or bad? This allows user level control of the LDT (Local descriptor table or some such). This is needed by some programs. o options like: KTRACE, INVARIANTS, INVARIANT_SUPPORT, DIAGNOSTIC are for kernel debugging, am I right? I also read in LINT that it will make my kernel size larger. Does large kernels means worse performance? Do I really need to debug my kernel? It will make a slightly larger kernel and it will be slightly slower. Disable these options unless you intend on doing debugging. o PERFMON, do I need it? does it improve performance? Up to you. Not directly. o UCONSOLE, USERCONFIG VISUAL_USERCONFIG, do i need them? I'll be running X, and according to handbook, UCONSOLE is good for something. What about the rest? Why do they have comments like XXX - don't belong here in LINT. Are they not suppose to be used? UCONSOLE allows the user to grab the console. The other two options are unnecessary. Most of these options are described on the web or in the FreeBSD handbook. -Don ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: kernel configuration
o options like: KTRACE, INVARIANTS, INVARIANT_SUPPORT, DIAGNOSTIC are for kernel debugging, am I right? I also read in LINT that it will make my kernel size larger. Does large kernels means worse performance? Do I really need to debug my kernel? No, you don't need to debug your kernel, that's actually for the developers. And yes, it makes your kernel bigger AND slower. For the rest, see /usr/src/sys/i386/conf/NOTES -- TONI HEINONEN TELEWARE OY +358 40 836 1815 / +358 (9) 3434 9110 Laajalahdentie 23 00330 Helsinki, Finland [EMAIL PROTECTED] / www.teleware.fi ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Kernel configuration
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 08:20:42PM +0200, Toni Heinonen wrote: % grep NFS /usr/src/sys/i386/conf/MEITSIN #optionsNFSCLIENT # Network Filesystem Client #optionsNFSSERVER # Network Filesystem Server #optionsNFS_ROOT# NFS usable as /, requires NFSCLIENT % ls /boot/kernel/nfs* /boot/kernel/nfsclient.ko /boot/kernel/nfsserver.ko % grep MEITSIN /boot/kernel/kernel Binary file /boot/kernel/kernel matches I didn't give options NFSCLIENT or NFSSERVER yet it seems to have compiled support. What gives? What you don't compile into your kernel (by eg. 'options NFSCLIENT') will generally be compiled as a loadable module instead -- here nfsclient.ko Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 26 The Paddocks Savill Way PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Marlow Tel: +44 1628 476614 Bucks., SL7 1TH UK pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Kernel configuration
* Matthew Seaman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-26 10:56]: On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 08:20:42PM +0200, Toni Heinonen wrote: I didn't give options NFSCLIENT or NFSSERVER yet it seems to have compiled support. What gives? What you don't compile into your kernel (by eg. 'options NFSCLIENT') will generally be compiled as a loadable module instead -- here nfsclient.ko I've wondered about this -- is that the significance of the NO_MODULES parameter in make.conf? IOW, if one was to specify no_modules, would that build only the kernel modules that were specified in the conf? -- Joshua Those who hate and fight must stop themselves -- otherwise it is not stopped. -- Spock, Day of the Dove, stardate unknown ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Kernel configuration
[ kernel modules ] On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 11:03:49AM -0800, Joshua Lokken wrote: * Matthew Seaman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-26 10:56]: What you don't compile into your kernel (by eg. 'options NFSCLIENT') will generally be compiled as a loadable module instead -- here nfsclient.ko I've wondered about this -- is that the significance of the NO_MODULES parameter in make.conf? IOW, if one was to specify no_modules, would that build only the kernel modules that were specified in the conf? If you put NO_MODULES=true into /etc/make.conf, then you'll only get the kernel build. You won't get any extra loadable modules. Other than that, you can specify a list of modules to build if you don't want all of them: MODULES_OVERRIDE= linux ipfw Not sure what happens if you configure those options in the kernel config, and also add them to the 'MODULES_OVERRIDE' list. There's also 'MODULES_WITH_WORLD=true' which separates building kernel modules from building the rest of the kernel. This is solely for backwards compatability -- I can't think of any good reason to use this option otherwise. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 26 The Paddocks Savill Way PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Marlow Tel: +44 1628 476614 Bucks., SL7 1TH UK pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Kernel configuration
* Matthew Seaman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-26 11:57]: [ kernel modules ] If you put NO_MODULES=true into /etc/make.conf, then you'll only get the kernel build. You won't get any extra loadable modules. Got it. Thank you. On my workstations, where resources are plentiful, I suppose it doesn't matter much to have all of the kernel modules built and installed, but on resource-scant or single-purpose machines (ie firewall/router), it seems that it would be somewhat significant to exclude them. Others' feedback? -- Joshua What kind of love is that? Not to be loved; never to have shown love. -- Commissioner Nancy Hedford, Metamorphosis, stardate 3219.8 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kernel configuration
On Saturday 08 March 2003 04:26 pm, charles pelletier wrote: Okay, just to make sure this is correct (my first use of the newer more current kernel config).. The only steps involved are those listed in the handbook: Change to the /usr/src directory. # cd /usr/src Compile the kernel. # make buildkernel KERNCONF=MYKERNEL Install the new kernel. # make installkernel KERNCONF=MYKERNEL I don't have to do any other steps, as in those in the original method (make, make depend, etc)? That is correct. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
RE: kernel configuration
thanks for the help ! Charles Pelletier Tech Coordinator St Luke's School Irving, TX -Original Message- From: taxman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 12:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'freebsd' Subject: Re: kernel configuration On Saturday 08 March 2003 04:26 pm, charles pelletier wrote: Okay, just to make sure this is correct (my first use of the newer more current kernel config).. The only steps involved are those listed in the handbook: Change to the /usr/src directory. # cd /usr/src Compile the kernel. # make buildkernel KERNCONF=MYKERNEL Install the new kernel. # make installkernel KERNCONF=MYKERNEL I don't have to do any other steps, as in those in the original method (make, make depend, etc)? That is correct. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
