Re: highmem kernel question
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:07:26 -0600 Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/05/07 17:24, Andrei Popescu wrote: On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 12:06:07 -0600 Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You need linux-image-2.6.18-4-686. ^^^ Are you sure? I just updated and I still only see the -3- image. I use Sid. Maybe Etch is still at -3-? I thought I was using sid as well. I commented out the sid entry for an experiment, but forgot to activate it again. I was wondering why I get so few updates. Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
highmem kernel question
Hi, I've upgraded my RAM from 512M to 1.5G, (the original 512 plus a new 1GB chip). I've installed it correctly, as verified by the BIOS and WinXP on the same machine. Debian testing only sees 906792kb vs 1563056kb in WinXP. Google tells me that I need a kernel with highmem support. I can't sort out what I need to do though - is this accomplished with a different linux-image from aptitude, and if so, which one? [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ uname -a Linux blackbart 2.6.18-3-486 #1 Mon Dec 4 15:59:52 UTC 2006 i686 GNU/Linux Thinkpad R60, Intel Core Solo 1660 Mhz CPU -- Regards, Tyler Smit -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: highmem kernel question
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 17:32:01 GMT Tyler Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I've upgraded my RAM from 512M to 1.5G, (the original 512 plus a new 1GB chip). I've installed it correctly, as verified by the BIOS and WinXP on the same machine. Debian testing only sees 906792kb vs 1563056kb in WinXP. Google tells me that I need a kernel with highmem support. I can't sort out what I need to do though - is this accomplished with a different linux-image from aptitude, and if so, which one? [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ uname -a Linux blackbart 2.6.18-3-486 #1 Mon Dec 4 15:59:52 UTC 2006 i686 GNU/Linux Thinkpad R60, Intel Core Solo 1660 Mhz CPU Use a -686 image. ~$ grep HIGHMEM /boot/config-2.6.18-3-686 # CONFIG_NOHIGHMEM is not set CONFIG_HIGHMEM4G=y # CONFIG_HIGHMEM64G is not set CONFIG_HIGHMEM=y HTH, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: highmem kernel question
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/05/07 11:32, Tyler Smith wrote: Hi, I've upgraded my RAM from 512M to 1.5G, (the original 512 plus a new 1GB chip). I've installed it correctly, as verified by the BIOS and WinXP on the same machine. Debian testing only sees 906792kb vs 1563056kb in WinXP. Google tells me that I need a kernel with highmem support. I can't sort out what I need to do though - is this accomplished with a different linux-image from aptitude, and if so, which one? [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ uname -a Linux blackbart 2.6.18-3-486 #1 Mon Dec 4 15:59:52 UTC 2006 i686 GNU/Linux Thinkpad R60, Intel Core Solo 1660 Mhz CPU You need linux-image-2.6.18-4-686. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFx3IPS9HxQb37XmcRArJpAKCbiZgoq3W2uk5pQTOrly9h7YPT3QCgtG3U U6KiShKlEYXLF2Dokfg7P+s= =g1Q6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: highmem kernel question
On 2007-02-05, Andrei Popescu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 17:32:01 GMT Tyler Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I've upgraded my RAM from 512M to 1.5G, ... Google tells me that I need a kernel with highmem support. ... which one? Linux blackbart 2.6.18-3-486 #1 Mon Dec 4 15:59:52 UTC 2006 i686 Thinkpad R60, Intel Core Solo 1660 Mhz CPU Use a -686 image. HTH, Andrei -- I installed the linux-image-2.6.18-3-686 from testing, and free now reports 1,547,636kb total ram! Thanks! -- Regards, Tyler Smit -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: highmem kernel question
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 12:06:07 -0600 Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You need linux-image-2.6.18-4-686. ^^^ Are you sure? I just updated and I still only see the -3- image. Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: highmem kernel question
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/05/07 17:24, Andrei Popescu wrote: On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 12:06:07 -0600 Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You need linux-image-2.6.18-4-686. ^^^ Are you sure? I just updated and I still only see the -3- image. I use Sid. Maybe Etch is still at -3-? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFx8a+S9HxQb37XmcRAibrAJ9SO2+HEpepE9pWuWPQXeE3rry4YACeOHMY j53qgid0I1sBSXmoTcbS0Ng= =86PN -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: highmem kernel question
On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 06:07:26PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: On 02/05/07 17:24, Andrei Popescu wrote: On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 12:06:07 -0600 Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You need linux-image-2.6.18-4-686. ^^^ Are you sure? I just updated and I still only see the -3- image. I use Sid. Maybe Etch is still at -3-? I think so. And I only get -4- in the last day or two, though maybe I'm behind on my updates. A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: highmem kernel question
On Mon February 5 2007 15:24, Andrei Popescu wrote: On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 12:06:07 -0600 Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You need linux-image-2.6.18-4-686. ^^^ Are you sure? I just updated and I still only see the -3- image. Etch is still at -3. If all goes well the -4 with move into etch soon. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian sarge kernel question
thanks perhaps i got a older version. but i hope the debian developer's group include kernel source code at new version On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 05:28:07PM +0200, Romain Marciel wrote: monky wrote: hello,everybody i download debian sarge Disk 1 from internet and install it. everything is successful.but i download other software in my computer. when i compile there softwares,the system promt me your must have kernel header file. i run 'uname -r' at my computer,i get some message 2.6.8-1-686.i install debian sarge with linux26 and default settings.but sarge Disk 1 have not the kernel source code,so i use apt-get download a kernel source ball and uncompress it in /usr/src.some question here,when i run ' apt-cache search kernel|grep 2.6.8|grep ^k|grep source',i get following messages: kernel-patch-2.6.8-hppa - Diffs to the kernel source for HP PA-RISC (2.6) kernel-patch-2.6.8-m68k - Diffs to the kernel source for m68k kernel-patch-2.6.8-s390 - Diffs to the Linux kernel source 2.6.8 for IBM S/390 and zSeries kernel-source-2.6.8 - Linux kernel source for version 2.6.8 with Debian patches kernel-tree-2.6.8 - Linux kernel source tree for building Debian kernel images just you see,there have not about 2.6.8-1-686 recordes. so i can not compile my application which require kernel header file util i recompile my linux kernel with new kernel(kernel-source-2.6.8). who can tell me why the debian sarge default install and the system kernel is 2.6.8-1-686(or 386),but have not fit kernel source code??? because it, i must compile my kernel tow times (install and recompile),i'am not understander why it??? sorry for my pool english:) When I installed Sarge, I got a 2.6.8-2-686... There's no problem with this package : I've just made an apt-get install kernel-header-2.6.8-2-686 and everything went on without problem... Perhaps you should upgrade your kernel version ? Romain Lorquet -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
debian sarge kernel question
hello,everybody i download debian sarge Disk 1 from internet and install it. everything is successful.but i download other software in my computer. when i compile there softwares,the system promt me your must have kernel header file. i run 'uname -r' at my computer,i get some message 2.6.8-1-686.i install debian sarge with linux26 and default settings.but sarge Disk 1 have not the kernel source code,so i use apt-get download a kernel source ball and uncompress it in /usr/src.some question here,when i run ' apt-cache search kernel|grep 2.6.8|grep ^k|grep source',i get following messages: kernel-patch-2.6.8-hppa - Diffs to the kernel source for HP PA-RISC (2.6) kernel-patch-2.6.8-m68k - Diffs to the kernel source for m68k kernel-patch-2.6.8-s390 - Diffs to the Linux kernel source 2.6.8 for IBM S/390 and zSeries kernel-source-2.6.8 - Linux kernel source for version 2.6.8 with Debian patches kernel-tree-2.6.8 - Linux kernel source tree for building Debian kernel images just you see,there have not about 2.6.8-1-686 recordes. so i can not compile my application which require kernel header file util i recompile my linux kernel with new kernel(kernel-source-2.6.8). who can tell me why the debian sarge default install and the system kernel is 2.6.8-1-686(or 386),but have not fit kernel source code??? because it, i must compile my kernel tow times (install and recompile),i'am not understander why it??? sorry for my pool english:) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian sarge kernel question
monky wrote: hello,everybody i download debian sarge Disk 1 from internet and install it. everything is successful.but i download other software in my computer. when i compile there softwares,the system promt me your must have kernel header file. i run 'uname -r' at my computer,i get some message 2.6.8-1-686.i install debian sarge with linux26 and default settings.but sarge Disk 1 have not the kernel source code,so i use apt-get download a kernel source ball and uncompress it in /usr/src.some question here,when i run ' apt-cache search kernel|grep 2.6.8|grep ^k|grep source',i get following messages: kernel-patch-2.6.8-hppa - Diffs to the kernel source for HP PA-RISC (2.6) kernel-patch-2.6.8-m68k - Diffs to the kernel source for m68k kernel-patch-2.6.8-s390 - Diffs to the Linux kernel source 2.6.8 for IBM S/390 and zSeries kernel-source-2.6.8 - Linux kernel source for version 2.6.8 with Debian patches kernel-tree-2.6.8 - Linux kernel source tree for building Debian kernel images just you see,there have not about 2.6.8-1-686 recordes. so i can not compile my application which require kernel header file util i recompile my linux kernel with new kernel(kernel-source-2.6.8). who can tell me why the debian sarge default install and the system kernel is 2.6.8-1-686(or 386),but have not fit kernel source code??? because it, i must compile my kernel tow times (install and recompile),i'am not understander why it??? sorry for my pool english:) When I installed Sarge, I got a 2.6.8-2-686... There's no problem with this package : I've just made an apt-get install kernel-header-2.6.8-2-686 and everything went on without problem... Perhaps you should upgrade your kernel version ? Romain Lorquet -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
newbie kernel question
How can I tell which Linux kernel is running on my Debian machine? Thanks.
Re: newbie kernel question
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 01:32:25PM -0400, Mark D. Hansen wrote: How can I tell which Linux kernel is running on my Debian machine? Thanks. uname -r -- Thomas Adam -- Frankly, Mr. Shankly, since you ask. You are a flatulent pain in the arse. -- Morrissey. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: newbie kernel question
How can I tell which Linux kernel is running on my Debian machine? Thanks. type 'uname -a' Cheers, Peter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: newbie kernel question
Justin - On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 07:13:22PM +0100, Justin Cassidy wrote: /var/lib/dpkg/info/mysql-server.postinst: /etc/init.d/mysql: No such file or directory (as root): touch /etc/init.d/mysql chmod 755 /etc/init.d/mysql *then* re-run the apt-get command I gave you in my last e-mail. As an aside, kindly *try* and keep your replies on-list and do not top-post. -- Thomas Adam -- Frankly, Mr. Shankly, since you ask. You are a flatulent pain in the arse. -- Morrissey. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: newbie kernel question
Hello Mark D. Hansen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: How can I tell which Linux kernel is running on my Debian machine? Use uname. best regards Andreas Janssen -- Andreas Janssen [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP-Key-ID: 0xDC801674 ICQ #17079270 Registered Linux User #267976 http://www.andreas-janssen.de/debian-tipps.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: newbie kernel question
/var/lib/dpkg/info/mysql-server.postinst: /etc/init.d/mysql: No such file or directory update-rc.d: /etc/init.d/mysql: file does not exist dpkg: error processing mysql-server (--configure): subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1 Errors were encountered while processing: mysql-server E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Thomas Adam wrote: On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 01:32:25PM -0400, Mark D. Hansen wrote: How can I tell which Linux kernel is running on my Debian machine? Thanks. uname -r -- Thomas Adam -- Frankly, Mr. Shankly, since you ask. You are a flatulent pain in the arse. -- Morrissey. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -=xachen=- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] IRC: irc.irctoo.net #irctoo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: newbie kernel question
Mark D. Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How can I tell which Linux kernel is running on my Debian machine? Thanks. uname -a pgphsKWjYxG0T.pgp Description: PGP signature
2.4.26 to 2.6 kernel question
What is the correct procedure to 2.6 kernel and utilities? -ihswar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2.4.26 to 2.6 kernel question
Ishwar Rattan wrote: What is the correct procedure to 2.6 kernel and utilities? apt-get install kernel-image This will show a list of all available kernel images. Pick a 2.6 kernel image for your processor and install it. If you are on Sarge or Sid, 2.6 kernels will be in the repository. If you are on Woody, you will need to go to backports.org for more info. Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kernel question
On Friday 06 February 2004 08:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can boot to a console and use apt-get install kernel-image to see a list of available kernel images (with versions). Pick a newer kernel from the list and install that. I tried that. The new kernel image would not boot up because of missing modules.dep references. Does one need to build the whole thing or is there a way to simply use the newer kernel with the modules that are already on the system? (I have not succeded in rebuilding one from source, either--always gets past all the compiles and then fails on some file reference or other--I need to get ext3 and jbd compiled into an image or install one ready-made. How?) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kernel question
On Friday 06 February 2004 04:23 am, David Baron wrote: The new kernel image would not boot up because of missing modules.dep references. Does one need to build the whole thing or is there a way to simply use the newer kernel with the modules that are already on the system? Try running depmod -a [kernel version #]. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kernel question
Adam Aube wrote: On Friday 06 February 2004 04:23 am, David Baron wrote: The new kernel image would not boot up because of missing modules.dep references. Does one need to build the whole thing or is there a way to simply use the newer kernel with the modules that are already on the system? Try running depmod -a [kernel version #]. do you not also need to point to the System.map file, if you are running depmod on a non-running kernel? depmod -a -F [/path/to/System.map] [KERNELVERSION] cheers, Sam -- Free High School Science Texts http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/fhsst Sam's Homepages http://fommil.homeunix.org/~samuel http://www.ma.hw.ac.uk/~samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
kernel question
Hi all, Sorry to ask such a silly question, but I haven't found a good answer for it on google. I've got a Dell GX115 box running a basic Debian system from the 3.0r2 installation cds, with kernel 2.2. I tried the bf24 install, but it failed with a bad eic value, which after some searching seems to be a problem with that particular kernel and the bios on the box. The 2.2 kernel runs fine, but it doesn't have agp gart support, which is preventing the x server from running. Can anyone suggest a kernel version to try? Thanks, Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kernel question
On Thursday February 5 at 02:44pm Matt Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry to ask such a silly question, but I haven't found a good answer for it on google. I've got a Dell GX115 box running a basic Debian system from the 3.0r2 installation cds, with kernel 2.2. I tried the bf24 install, but it failed with a bad eic value, which after some searching seems to be a problem with that particular kernel and the bios on the box. The 2.2 kernel runs fine, but it doesn't have agp gart support, which is preventing the x server from running. Can anyone suggest a kernel version to try? cat /proc/cpuinfo apt-cache search ^kernel-image -- -johann koenig Today is Sweetmorn, the 36th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3170 My public pgp key: http://mental-graffiti.com/pgp/johannkoenig.pgp pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: kernel question
On Thursday 05 February 2004 05:44 pm, Matt Richardson wrote: Sorry to ask such a silly question, but I haven't found a good answer for it on google. I've got a Dell GX115 box running a basic Debian system from the 3.0r2 installation cds, with kernel 2.2. I tried the bf24 install, but it failed with a bad eic value, which after some searching seems to be a problem with that particular kernel and the bios on the box. The 2.2 kernel runs fine, but it doesn't have agp gart support, which is preventing the x server from running. Can anyone suggest a kernel version to try? You can boot to a console and use apt-get install kernel-image to see a list of available kernel images (with versions). Pick a newer kernel from the list and install that. Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kernel question
I don't see a 2.4 kernel in the stable Debian packages. I've been told it's usually NOT a good idea to take a kernel directly from kernel.org because it won't contain the customizations provided by your distribution, and things will likely break. I've also been told to use a 2.4 kernel for better USB support (which started this whole thing). What's the story, and what do the cognoscenti recommend? Thanx - Charlie _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Re: Kernel question
Charles Parker wrote: I don't see a 2.4 kernel in the stable Debian packages. I've been told it's usually NOT a good idea to take a kernel directly from kernel.org because it won't contain the customizations provided by your distribution, and things will likely break. I've also been told to use a 2.4 kernel for better USB support (which started this whole thing). What's the story, and what do the cognoscenti recommend? Thanx - Charlie I don't believe Debian customizes the kernel at all. There are pre-compiled versions available with different options set (see things like kernel-image-2.2.19-compact and kernel-image-2.2.19-ide I'd suggest running 2.4.17 or 2.4.18 if you can... seems to be working fine. One warning (might have been discussed earlier on the thread): don't use a 2.4.x kernel with Debian Potato (a.k.a stable a.k.a 2.2.r5). There were some issues there. --Rich _ Rich Puhek ETN Systems Inc. _
Re: Kernel question
On Fri, 2002-03-08 at 13:52, Charles Parker wrote: I don't see a 2.4 kernel in the stable Debian packages. I've been told it's usually NOT a good idea to take a kernel directly from kernel.org because it won't contain the customizations provided by your distribution, and things will likely break. I've also been told to use a 2.4 kernel for better USB support (which started this whole thing). What's the story, and what do the cognoscenti recommend? You need to dist-upgrade to woody if you want a 2.4.x kernel. Also cooking your own kernel from kernel.org sources work just fine. There shouldn't be anything wrong with it. From what I remember from a thread about 3 4 months ago, the patches debian applies to its kernels are trivial and don't warrant not cooking your own kernel. But be warned you cant use a 2.4.x kernel on potato at all, only woody or above will handle a 2.4.x kernel. I hope I helped some. Peace -- -Scott Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty: power is ever stealing from the many to the few. The manna of popular liberty must be gathered each day, or it is rotten... The hand entrusted with power becomes, either from human depravity or esprit de corps, the necessary enemy of the people. Only by continual oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot: only by unintermitted agitation can a people be kept sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity... Never look, for an age when the people can be quiet and safe. At such times despotism, like a shrouding mist, steals over the mirror of Freedom - Wendell Phillips
Re: Kernel question
* Charles Parker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly: ... I've been told it's usually NOT a good idea to take a kernel directly from kernel.org because it won't contain the customizations provided by your distribution, and things will likely break. This is usually the case with DeadRat, but -- tada! -- Debian is not RH. What's the story, and what do the cognoscenti recommend? apt-get install kernel-package. Been using it (and stock kernels) pretty much since it came out. Works like a charm (thanks Manoj). Dima -- Q276304 - Error Message: Your Password Must Be at Least 18770 Characters and Cannot Repeat Any of Your Previous 30689 Passwords -- RISKS 21.37
Re: Kernel question
begin Rich Puhek quotation: I don't believe Debian customizes the kernel at all. There are pre-compiled versions available with different options set (see things like kernel-image-2.2.19-compact and kernel-image-2.2.19-ide There are also usually some extra patches applied, which I prefer to avoid. I build my kernels with the official tarballs. I'd suggest running 2.4.17 or 2.4.18 if you can... seems to be working fine. 2.4.18 has some problems that are fixed in 2.4.19pre2. For one thing, I couldn't get at my USB compact flash card reader (which uses the usb-storage driver and pretends to be a SCSI drive) to work under 2.4.18. There have been complaints of other issues on the kernel mailing list as well. I'd suggest sticking with 2.4.17 until 2.4.19 comes out. One warning (might have been discussed earlier on the thread): don't use a 2.4.x kernel with Debian Potato (a.k.a stable a.k.a 2.2.r5). There were some issues there. I thought Adrian Bunk had some packages for using 2.4 kernels on Potato. Are those no longer available? I haven't been paying much attention to that, since my only Potato machine is running 2.2.19 and I see no reason to change it. Craig pgpSrmjRRqxBM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Kernel question
begin Charles Parker quotation: I don't see a 2.4 kernel in the stable Debian packages. I've been told it's usually NOT a good idea to take a kernel directly from kernel.org because it won't contain the customizations provided by your distribution, and things will likely break. Not true on Debian. I always build mine from kernel.org tarballs. I've also been told to use a 2.4 kernel for better USB support (which started this whole thing). USB support in recent 2.4 kernels is pretty decent. If this is a workstation machine (i.e. one that someone is actually going to be working at, as opposed to a dedicated server), you probably ought to just move to Woody, which has 2.4 kernels available. Potato's apps are so far out of date it isn't funny anymore. If you want to run GNOME, KDE, mozilla, or any number of other programs that have evolved significantly in the last two years, you'll find it much more pleasant with Woody. Craig pgpgTWmhtxyLQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Kernel question
On Fri, 2002-03-08 at 19:52, Charles Parker wrote: I don't see a 2.4 kernel in the stable Debian packages. http://www.fs.tum.de/~bunk/kernel-24.html -- I did not vote for the Austrian government
Re: Kernel question
On Fri, 2002-03-08 at 20:49, Scott Henson wrote: You need to dist-upgrade to woody if you want a 2.4.x kernel. Wrong. See other post in thread Also cooking your own kernel from kernel.org sources work just fine. There shouldn't be anything wrong with it. You need new modutils and possibly other stuff. See other post -- I did not vote for the Austrian government
Re: Kernel question
Charles == Charles Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Charles I don't see a 2.4 kernel in the stable Debian Charles packages. I've been told it's usually NOT a good idea to Charles take a kernel directly from kernel.org because it won't Charles contain the customizations provided by your distribution, Charles and things will likely break. I've also been told to use Charles a 2.4 kernel for better USB support (which started this Charles whole thing). I actually went to Woody mostly so I could use the USB ports on my laptop like I wanted to. I have not tried using 2.4.x kernels on potato, though I heard there were reasons not to. With woody I got 2.4.17. AFAIK there's no reason you can't use a kernel.org kernel on Debian. Just follow the instruction in /usr/doc/kernel-package/README carefully. Cheers! Shyamal
Re: Kernel question
On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Charles Parker wrote: I don't see a 2.4 kernel in the stable Debian packages. I've been told it's usually NOT a good idea to take a kernel directly from kernel.org because it won't contain the customizations provided by your distribution, and things will likely break. I've also been told to use a 2.4 kernel for better USB support (which started this whole thing). Go for it anyway. I have not seen issues on my mom's Debian Stable box with 2.4. -- Baloo
Re: woody kernel question
Just my two cents. You seem like a decently experienced user, but confused about upgrading kernels. You don't *have* to run 2.4.18-pre9 like everyone else is telling you to. 2.4.17 should be fine for your needs, and you can upgrade to 2.4.18 later when it's actually released. - Jordan - Original Message - From: Paul E Condon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 11:18 PM Subject: Re: woody kernel question On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 08:56:29PM -0800, Geoff Ludwiczak wrote: I have been using kernel 2.4.18-pre9 for the past couple days and see no problems with it so far. I was using 2.4.17 before, and had no troubles with it either. Try 2.4.17, but if you're going to use 2.2, then just use 2.2.20. Thanks, but now I have another question. Where does one find 2.4.18-pre9? When I read your message, I thought gee that's strange 2.2.17 is the highest version that I saw at http.us.debian.org. So I did update again in dselect and still see no 2.4.18-pre9. Where is it found? On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 08:34:00PM -0800, Paul E Condon wrote: I have just done dist-upgrade from Potato to Woody. I have been using/learning Debian for a few months. This was the first serious change from my initial installation. The upgrade went smoothly, but took a while at 56k. I found many nice improvements, but saw that the kernel had not been upgraded. I suppose I could have known this before hand if I had read the right documents more carefully, but I didn't. Now I look at the offerings of kernels in dselect. Which is recommended? Of course I have to choose one that corresponds to my CPU, but what of versioning? I see 2.2.20, 2.4.13, 2.4.14, 2.4.16, and 2.4.17. There are limits to my adventurousness. Which is the likely choise for the default Woody kernel when it becomes stable? I think I would like to use that one if there are not good reasons to avoid it now. Thanks. -- Paul E Condon [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Paul E Condon [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: woody kernel question
On Mon, 2002-02-11 at 23:34, Paul E Condon wrote: I have just done dist-upgrade from Potato to Woody. I have been using/learning Debian for a few months. This was the first serious change from my initial installation. The upgrade went smoothly, but took a while at 56k. I found many nice improvements, but saw that the kernel had not been upgraded. I suppose I could have known this before hand if I had read the right documents more carefully, but I didn't. Now I look at the offerings of kernels in dselect. Which is recommended? Of course I have to choose one that corresponds to my CPU, but what of versioning? I see 2.2.20, 2.4.13, 2.4.14, 2.4.16, and 2.4.17. There are limits to my adventurousness. Which is the likely choise for the default Woody kernel when it becomes stable? I think I would like to use that one if there are not good reasons to avoid it now. If I remember correctly the current consensus is that 2.2.20 will be the default kernel for woody. I think this was mainly because 2.4.x was not quite stable enough when the base system was frozen. iirc the base was frozen durring the debacle with 2.4.13(it corupted file systems). Right now 2.4.17 with marcello maintaining is just great. I have been using it for a while now and I have never had a problem with it, even with all the abuse that I do to it. Currently on my system: vmlinuz - boot/vmlinuz-2.4.17 vmlinuz.stable - boot/vmlinuz-2.2.20 This seems to work for me. I never boot into 2.2.20 unless I am re-compliling 2.4.17, and this is just to be safe and to reduce a few minor hassels. But to answer your question 2.2.20 is going to be the default, but I would recomend 2.4.17 because it is far supirior in many ways. Also I would compile your own kernel. It teaches you alot and in the long run it is better(IMHO). Oh and use make-kpkg because it is the bomb! But remember... all of these opinions are for a home desktop. -- -Scott Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
woody kernel question
I have just done dist-upgrade from Potato to Woody. I have been using/learning Debian for a few months. This was the first serious change from my initial installation. The upgrade went smoothly, but took a while at 56k. I found many nice improvements, but saw that the kernel had not been upgraded. I suppose I could have known this before hand if I had read the right documents more carefully, but I didn't. Now I look at the offerings of kernels in dselect. Which is recommended? Of course I have to choose one that corresponds to my CPU, but what of versioning? I see 2.2.20, 2.4.13, 2.4.14, 2.4.16, and 2.4.17. There are limits to my adventurousness. Which is the likely choise for the default Woody kernel when it becomes stable? I think I would like to use that one if there are not good reasons to avoid it now. Thanks. -- Paul E Condon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: woody kernel question
I have been using kernel 2.4.18-pre9 for the past couple days and see no problems with it so far. I was using 2.4.17 before, and had no troubles with it either. Try 2.4.17, but if you're going to use 2.2, then just use 2.2.20. On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 08:34:00PM -0800, Paul E Condon wrote: I have just done dist-upgrade from Potato to Woody. I have been using/learning Debian for a few months. This was the first serious change from my initial installation. The upgrade went smoothly, but took a while at 56k. I found many nice improvements, but saw that the kernel had not been upgraded. I suppose I could have known this before hand if I had read the right documents more carefully, but I didn't. Now I look at the offerings of kernels in dselect. Which is recommended? Of course I have to choose one that corresponds to my CPU, but what of versioning? I see 2.2.20, 2.4.13, 2.4.14, 2.4.16, and 2.4.17. There are limits to my adventurousness. Which is the likely choise for the default Woody kernel when it becomes stable? I think I would like to use that one if there are not good reasons to avoid it now. Thanks. -- Paul E Condon [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: woody kernel question
I have used 2.4.17 without problems. If 2.2.18 is what comes with woody now, then I guess it looks like favourite for the woody release. Tom Geoff Ludwiczak wrote: I have been using kernel 2.4.18-pre9 for the past couple days and see no problems with it so far. I was using 2.4.17 before, and had no troubles with it either. Try 2.4.17, but if you're going to use 2.2, then just use 2.2.20. On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 08:34:00PM -0800, Paul E Condon wrote: I have just done dist-upgrade from Potato to Woody. I have been using/learning Debian for a few months. This was the first serious change from my initial installation. The upgrade went smoothly, but took a while at 56k. I found many nice improvements, but saw that the kernel had not been upgraded. I suppose I could have known this before hand if I had read the right documents more carefully, but I didn't. Now I look at the offerings of kernels in dselect. Which is recommended? Of course I have to choose one that corresponds to my CPU, but what of versioning? I see 2.2.20, 2.4.13, 2.4.14, 2.4.16, and 2.4.17. There are limits to my adventurousness. Which is the likely choise for the default Woody kernel when it becomes stable? I think I would like to use that one if there are not good reasons to avoid it now. Thanks. -- Paul E Condon [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: woody kernel question
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 08:56:29PM -0800, Geoff Ludwiczak wrote: I have been using kernel 2.4.18-pre9 for the past couple days and see no problems with it so far. I was using 2.4.17 before, and had no troubles with it either. Try 2.4.17, but if you're going to use 2.2, then just use 2.2.20. Thanks, but now I have another question. Where does one find 2.4.18-pre9? When I read your message, I thought gee that's strange 2.2.17 is the highest version that I saw at http.us.debian.org. So I did update again in dselect and still see no 2.4.18-pre9. Where is it found? On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 08:34:00PM -0800, Paul E Condon wrote: I have just done dist-upgrade from Potato to Woody. I have been using/learning Debian for a few months. This was the first serious change from my initial installation. The upgrade went smoothly, but took a while at 56k. I found many nice improvements, but saw that the kernel had not been upgraded. I suppose I could have known this before hand if I had read the right documents more carefully, but I didn't. Now I look at the offerings of kernels in dselect. Which is recommended? Of course I have to choose one that corresponds to my CPU, but what of versioning? I see 2.2.20, 2.4.13, 2.4.14, 2.4.16, and 2.4.17. There are limits to my adventurousness. Which is the likely choise for the default Woody kernel when it becomes stable? I think I would like to use that one if there are not good reasons to avoid it now. Thanks. -- Paul E Condon [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Paul E Condon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: woody kernel question
Go to http://www.kernel.org and you should see the 2.4.18-pre9 patch. On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 09:18:55PM -0800, Paul E Condon wrote: On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 08:56:29PM -0800, Geoff Ludwiczak wrote: I have been using kernel 2.4.18-pre9 for the past couple days and see no problems with it so far. I was using 2.4.17 before, and had no troubles with it either. Try 2.4.17, but if you're going to use 2.2, then just use 2.2.20. Thanks, but now I have another question. Where does one find 2.4.18-pre9? When I read your message, I thought gee that's strange 2.2.17 is the highest version that I saw at http.us.debian.org. So I did update again in dselect and still see no 2.4.18-pre9. Where is it found? On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 08:34:00PM -0800, Paul E Condon wrote: I have just done dist-upgrade from Potato to Woody. I have been using/learning Debian for a few months. This was the first serious change from my initial installation. The upgrade went smoothly, but took a while at 56k. I found many nice improvements, but saw that the kernel had not been upgraded. I suppose I could have known this before hand if I had read the right documents more carefully, but I didn't. Now I look at the offerings of kernels in dselect. Which is recommended? Of course I have to choose one that corresponds to my CPU, but what of versioning? I see 2.2.20, 2.4.13, 2.4.14, 2.4.16, and 2.4.17. There are limits to my adventurousness. Which is the likely choise for the default Woody kernel when it becomes stable? I think I would like to use that one if there are not good reasons to avoid it now. Thanks. -- Paul E Condon [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Paul E Condon [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: simple kernel question
On Sun, 27 Jan 2002 16:40:56 -0500 dman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 08:23:06AM +0800, csj wrote: | On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 14:28:28 -0500 | Eric C. Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | On Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 03:07:18AM +0800, csj wrote: | In what file is the definitive documentation for ALL possible kernel | boot parameters located? Things like hdc=ide-scsi or apm=on which | you stick in your favorite bootloader. | | If you have a kernel source tree in /usr/src/linux, it's in | /usr/src/linux/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt | | Thanks. But the file looks more like a list (and indeed it says so: The | following is a consolidated list...) than the fine documentation we | love to flame clueless newbies with. For example, it doesn't explain | what idle= is supposed to do or what options to pass to it (on/off? 60 | [milliseconds]?). | | grep -i IDLE /usr/src/linux/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt | idle= [HW] | | Maybe it's google time. Try grep -ir IDLE /usr/src/linux/Documentation/ Let me do that one better. Let's look first for the suspects. alpha:/usr/src/linux grep -lir IDLE /usr/src/linux/Documentation/ /usr/src/linux/Documentation/networking/z8530drv.txt /usr/src/linux/Documentation/networking/arcnet-hardware.txt /usr/src/linux/Documentation/networking/ifenslave.c /usr/src/linux/Documentation/Configure.help /usr/src/linux/Documentation/smp.tex /usr/src/linux/Documentation/isdn/README /usr/src/linux/Documentation/isdn/INTERFACE.fax /usr/src/linux/Documentation/powerpc/smp.txt /usr/src/linux/Documentation/s390/Debugging390.txt /usr/src/linux/Documentation/sx.txt /usr/src/linux/Documentation/sysctl/kernel.txt /usr/src/linux/Documentation/video4linux/bttv/README.quirks /usr/src/linux/Documentation/arm/SA1100/DMA /usr/src/linux/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt /usr/src/linux/Documentation/pm.txt So which one? I narrow down the search to include the = sign, which is the form it's used as a kernel paramater. alpha:/usr/src/linux grep -lir IDLE= /usr/src/linux/Documentation/ /usr/src/linux/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt Which brings us back to where we started from, Eric's tip (kernel-parameters.txt) the options' details will be in the documentation file pertaining to that option (eg 'pm.txt' for apm). As you can see from the above the details are either not there or hoarded in some none too obvious file. -- Humanity's future is in the stars: support a manned mission to Mars! http://www.thinkmars.net/petition/addpetition.html
Re: simple kernel question
On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 14:28:28 -0500 Eric C. Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 03:07:18AM +0800, csj wrote: In what file is the definitive documentation for ALL possible kernel boot parameters located? Things like hdc=ide-scsi or apm=on which you stick in your favorite bootloader. If you have a kernel source tree in /usr/src/linux, it's in /usr/src/linux/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt Thanks. But the file looks more like a list (and indeed it says so: The following is a consolidated list...) than the fine documentation we love to flame clueless newbies with. For example, it doesn't explain what idle= is supposed to do or what options to pass to it (on/off? 60 [milliseconds]?). grep -i IDLE /usr/src/linux/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt idle= [HW] Maybe it's google time. -- Humanity's future is in the stars: support a manned mission to Mars! http://www.thinkmars.net/petition/addpetition.html
Re: simple kernel question
On Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 08:23:06AM +0800, csj wrote: | On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 14:28:28 -0500 | Eric C. Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | On Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 03:07:18AM +0800, csj wrote: | In what file is the definitive documentation for ALL possible kernel | boot parameters located? Things like hdc=ide-scsi or apm=on which | you stick in your favorite bootloader. | | If you have a kernel source tree in /usr/src/linux, it's in | /usr/src/linux/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt | | Thanks. But the file looks more like a list (and indeed it says so: The | following is a consolidated list...) than the fine documentation we | love to flame clueless newbies with. For example, it doesn't explain | what idle= is supposed to do or what options to pass to it (on/off? 60 | [milliseconds]?). | | grep -i IDLE /usr/src/linux/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt | idle= [HW] | | Maybe it's google time. Try grep -ir IDLE /usr/src/linux/Documentation/ the options' details will be in the documentation file pertaining to that option (eg 'pm.txt' for apm). -D -- Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 10:28
simple kernel question
In what file is the definitive documentation for ALL possible kernel boot parameters located? Things like hdc=ide-scsi or apm=on which you stick in your favorite bootloader. -- Humanity's future is in the stars: support a manned mission to Mars! http://www.thinkmars.net/petition/addpetition.html
Re: simple kernel question
On Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 03:07:18AM +0800, csj wrote: In what file is the definitive documentation for ALL possible kernel boot parameters located? Things like hdc=ide-scsi or apm=on which you stick in your favorite bootloader. If you have a kernel source tree in /usr/src/linux, it's in /usr/src/linux/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt -- Eric C. Cooper e c c @ c m u . e d u
kernel question
Help my hard drive has sustained very large physical damage. it boots sort of. as I use a multi processor system I would like to keep my kernel (it was a pain to configure) what is the best way of backing up my kernel? and restoring it! Dean Jackson TeleWare email [EMAIL PROTECTED] Telephone 01908 251474 Dean Jackson (E-mail).vcf This message has been checked for all known viruses, by Star Internet, delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit: http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp Dean Jackson (E-mail).vcf Description: Binary data
RE: kernel question
This WON't be easy if you're systemdisk is really damaged. It's pretty hard to explain this in an email because of the variety of conditions, let us know if you're getting somewhere or feeling rather lost. Did you allready boot into single user mode and run efsck2 ? Maybe you're just experiencing some other problem than real-life disk damage. Your system had a powerfailure and your filetables are messed up ... It boot's ? Take a look at step one and two below. Start making backups NOW. then reinstall your system, it's likely that it suffered a lot of damage. Some scenario = first of all : GET yourself some bootdisk/cd wich can be used to mount the root filesystem if that succeeded look for /boot and copy these contents to somewhere safe (will restore other kernels also, might want to narrow down the selection a bit) if there IS no /boot t you'll probably have to mount it, make sure you know wich is wich and go for a backup all the same second : you could try to see if your /usr/src directory's are intact, if you were smart enough to save your kernelconfig into a config file back up this file and start to reinstall, this would be the most flexible way to go. Do you remember if you did and where you left the config file ? Doesn't boot ? : if your drive is really seriously damaged start reading up on configuring SMP kernels, you'll HAVE to do it again with another disk. Good Luck to you, joris -Original Message- From: JACKSON, DEAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: dinsdag 27 maart 2001 16:33 To: 'debian-user@lists.debian.org' Subject: kernel question Help my hard drive has sustained very large physical damage. it boots sort of. as I use a multi processor system I would like to keep my kernel (it was a pain to configure) what is the best way of backing up my kernel? and restoring it! Dean Jackson TeleWare email [EMAIL PROTECTED] Telephone 01908 251474 Dean Jackson (E-mail).vcf This message has been checked for all known viruses, by Star Internet, delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit: http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp
Re: kernel question
JACKSON, DEAN wrote: Help my hard drive has sustained very large physical damage. it boots sort of. as I use a multi processor system I would like to keep my kernel (it was a pain to configure) what is the best way of backing up my kernel? and restoring it! Dean Jackson TeleWare email [EMAIL PROTECTED] Telephone 01908 251474 Dean Jackson (E-mail).vcf Hi Dean, generate your kernel as a debian package (make-kpkg or kernellab). Then you can save and install the kernel with dpkg. Greetings Albrecht
Re: general kernel question
Date sent: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:57:59 -0500 To: debian-user@lists.debian.org From: Erik van Roode [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: general kernel question Forwarded by: debian-user@lists.debian.org At 10:32 PM 2/16/01 +0100, c-3 wrote: I just wondered why the kernel is always compressed. Couldn't you save boot time, if it's not??? Depends on the speed of the medium from which you read the kernel, and the speed of the processor. If the processor can decompress faster than the medium can read, it makes sense to compress the image. And is there a way to compile a non compressed kernel image?
Re: general kernel question
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, c-3 wrote: Date sent:Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:57:59 -0500 To: debian-user@lists.debian.org From: Erik van Roode [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: general kernel question Forwarded by: debian-user@lists.debian.org At 10:32 PM 2/16/01 +0100, c-3 wrote: I just wondered why the kernel is always compressed. Couldn't you save boot time, if it's not??? Depends on the speed of the medium from which you read the kernel, and the speed of the processor. If the processor can decompress faster than the medium can read, it makes sense to compress the image. And is there a way to compile a non compressed kernel image? AFAIK it is just: make vmlinux Greetz, Sebastiaan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: general kernel question
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 04:02:45PM +0100, c-3 wrote: And is there a way to compile a non compressed kernel image? whenever you build a kernel (using any target zImage bzImage or vmlinux) you will always have a uncompressed ELF kernel in the top level kernel source directory at the end of the build. if you use make-kpkg you have to make it stop auto cleaning the source at the end of the build since it does not package uncompressed kernels on x86 (it does on powerpc, and packages a simple gzipped vmlinux for sparc). make vmlinux will just skip building the various compressed images. i am not certain its possible to boot an uncompressed kernel on x86 due to its braindamaged architecture. (depends on the bootloader, lilo/grub) it is most certainly impossible to boot one without a bootloader at all (unlike bzImage). -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/ pgpKtboVJee3T.pgp Description: PGP signature
general kernel question
Hi! I just wondered why the kernel is always compressed. Couldn't you save boot time, if it's not??? Christian
Re: general kernel question
At 10:32 PM 2/16/01 +0100, c-3 wrote: I just wondered why the kernel is always compressed. Couldn't you save boot time, if it's not??? Depends on the speed of the medium from which you read the kernel, and the speed of the processor. If the processor can decompress faster than the medium can read, it makes sense to compress the image. Erik
Re: wacky kernel question
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Carel Fellinger wrote:
it's because on a teletype you couldn't erase, so backspacing wouldn't
help in keeping things readeable:)
Hm, ok, that makes sense. I was thinking in the context of dumb
terminals; teletypes were slightly before my time.
Even after the use of CRT terminals became general, that deleting
convention was still used in some cases. The built in editor with the
version of BASIC included in many CPM and/or Radio Shack machines
required deletions to be done that way, even though it was probably
never used on a true teletype terminal.
Incidentally, TTY originally meant a teletype. The first
definition of TTY in the foldoc is:
1. {teletypewriter}.
Bob
--
_
|_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|_) (_) |_) 1294 S.W. Seagull Way [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Palm City, FL USA GPG Key ID: 390D6559
PGP Key ID: A8E40EB9
Re: wacky kernel question
I am glad to see I am not the only oldie on the list :)
Bring back paper tape and drum storage I say...
Cliff
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Carel Fellinger wrote:
it's because on a teletype you couldn't erase, so backspacing wouldn't
help in keeping things readeable:)
Hm, ok, that makes sense. I was thinking in the context of dumb
terminals; teletypes were slightly before my time.
Even after the use of CRT terminals became general, that deleting
convention was still used in some cases. The built in editor with the
version of BASIC included in many CPM and/or Radio Shack machines
required deletions to be done that way, even though it was probably
never used on a true teletype terminal.
Incidentally, TTY originally meant a teletype. The first
definition of TTY in the foldoc is:
1. {teletypewriter}.
Bob
--
_
|_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|_) (_) |_) 1294 S.W. Seagull Way [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Palm City, FL USA GPG Key ID: 390D6559
PGP Key ID: A8E40EB9
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wacky kernel question
On Wed 10 Jan 01, 3:07 PM, Cliff Sarginson said... I am glad to see I am not the only oldie on the list :) Bring back paper tape and drum storage I say... in which case you should join the united states air force. computer operators are still being trained on papertape / card drives and drum storage. i'm having an awfully difficult time trying to understand why linus would write this code into the kernel. was it a private walk down nostalgia lane or is there actually a use for it? pete -- Just upgraded to Woody? Don't have permission to run X? linux In Xwrapper.config, change allowed_users from root to console. - ---._. Coffee...I've conquered the Borg on coffee. [EMAIL PROTECTED]/v\ --Kathryn Janeway on the virtues of coffee http://www.dirac.org // \\ --- ^^ ^^ GPG Fingerprint: B9F1 6CF3 47C4 7CD8 D33E 70A9 A3B9 1945 67EA 951D rules pgpg0D5lvRc1J.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: wacky kernel question
On Wed 10 Jan 01, 3:07 PM, Cliff Sarginson said... I am glad to see I am not the only oldie on the list :) Bring back paper tape and drum storage I say... in which case you should join the united states air force. computer operators are still being trained on papertape / card drives and drum storage. i can still remember having to put the source on paper tape, load the assembler, process the source to an obj paper tape, load the linker tape, load your obj tape, and then load the lib tape, and finally produce a binary on paper tape. all from a tty at 110 baud. things have certainly improved!! i'm having an awfully difficult time trying to understand why linus would write this code into the kernel. was it a private walk down nostalgia lane or is there actually a use for it? When you consider all the different arch'es out there and support for system console on serial, it still makes sense. How would the driver find out what it's talking to? jim pete -- Just upgraded to Woody? Don't have permission to run X? linux In Xwrapper.config, change allowed_users from root to console. - ---._. Coffee...I've conquered the Borg on coffee. [EMAIL PROTECTED]/v\ --Kathryn Janeway on the virtues of coffee http://www.dirac.org // \\ --- ^^ ^^ GPG Fingerprint: B9F1 6CF3 47C4 7CD8 D33E 70A9 A3B9 1945 67EA 951D rules
Re: wacky kernel question
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 03:07:14PM +, Cliff Sarginson wrote: I am glad to see I am not the only oldie on the list :) Bring back paper tape and drum storage I say... You had paper tape? You lucky bastard, we had to toggle switches:) -- groetjes, carel
Re: wacky kernel question
Decwriters (hard copy terminal behaviour) Jeez you must be bored. Cliff On Tuesday 09 January 2001 22:31, Joey Hess wrote: I've been using linux for years and years, but I have never figured this odd little corner out. Perhaps someone here will know. If you type when the kernel is booting up, it echos to the screen. That's normal for linux of course. The interesting behavior that puzzles me is that if you hit the backspace key, it pops the letter that it is backspacing over off of the stack, and prints it. Some / and \ characters are printed too around what you typed. So, if I type: Joey he_ Then backspace back two spaces, I see: Joey he\eh/_ Then if I finish up by typing 'Hess', it looks like: Joey he\eh/Hess_ Finally, if I mash down on backspace to delete it all, I see: Joey he\eh/Hess\sseH yeoJ/_ Anyone know why this happens? It's a very interesting way to handle backspacing, to say the least. It doesn't often matter, since there is little point to type at the kernel while it's booting, unless you are extremely bored during a long fsck. :-)
Re: wacky kernel question
Carel Fellinger wrote: On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 03:07:14PM +, Cliff Sarginson wrote: I am glad to see I am not the only oldie on the list :) Bring back paper tape and drum storage I say... You had paper tape? You lucky bastard, we had to toggle switches:) This is turning into a Monty Python sketch, so someone had better finish it off... Aged Hacker 1: Brass switches? AH2: Yes AH1: You were lucky. We used to 'ave to break t' little plastic knobs off of our switches, drill 'oles through 'em an' thread 'em onto wires to use 'em for an abacus. AH3: Right! We had to get to work at 'alf past three int' morning, half an hour before we went 'ome, pull our own teeth out and use 'em to make an abacus, pay t' company ten pound an hour for abacus time, wait five years for a ten line BCPL program to compile, wait a further three years for t' program to load an' run, and at t' end of t' day our boss would sack us, and send us off to work for Microsoft! AH1: And if you tell that to the young folks o' today, they won't believe you! All: Yer right, they won't... -- Best regards, Peter Hugosson-Miller I'll give up Smalltalk when they pry the browser from my cold, dead fingers!
wacky kernel question
I've been using linux for years and years, but I have never figured this odd little corner out. Perhaps someone here will know. If you type when the kernel is booting up, it echos to the screen. That's normal for linux of course. The interesting behavior that puzzles me is that if you hit the backspace key, it pops the letter that it is backspacing over off of the stack, and prints it. Some / and \ characters are printed too around what you typed. So, if I type: Joey he_ Then backspace back two spaces, I see: Joey he\eh/_ Then if I finish up by typing 'Hess', it looks like: Joey he\eh/Hess_ Finally, if I mash down on backspace to delete it all, I see: Joey he\eh/Hess\sseH yeoJ/_ Anyone know why this happens? It's a very interesting way to handle backspacing, to say the least. It doesn't often matter, since there is little point to type at the kernel while it's booting, unless you are extremely bored during a long fsck. :-) -- see shy jo
Re: wacky kernel question
Joey Hess wrote: It doesn't often matter, since there is little point to type at the kernel while it's booting, unless you are extremely bored during a long fsck. :-) i think there is a fsck patch to play tetris or something while the system fscks ... http://www.movement.uklinux.net/fscktris/fscktris.html if your REALLY bored ...never tried it myself ... nate -- ::: ICQ: 75132336 http://www.aphroland.org/ http://www.linuxpowered.net/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wacky kernel question
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 01:31:04PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote: I've been using linux for years and years, but I have never figured this odd little corner out. Perhaps someone here will know. If you type when the kernel is booting up, it echos to the screen. That's normal for linux of course. The interesting behavior that puzzles me is that if you hit the backspace key, it pops the letter that it is backspacing over off of the stack, and prints it. Some / and \ characters are printed too around what you typed. This brings back sweet memories from when linux was unix and screens where teletypes:) IIRC it comes down to the kernel not knowing what type your terminal is and hence treating it as a real teletype, you know those hardcopy devices. So, if I type: Joey he_ Then backspace back two spaces, I see: Joey he\eh/_ yep, this is how it looked (IIRC:) Anyone know why this happens? It's a very interesting way to handle it's because on a teletype you couldn't erase, so backspacing wouldn't help in keeping things readeable:) But this is all from memory, and my memory is rusty and time has brought tiny holes, mostly colliding, so there might be huge holes. -- groetjes, carel
Re: wacky kernel question
Carel Fellinger wrote: it's because on a teletype you couldn't erase, so backspacing wouldn't help in keeping things readeable:) Hm, ok, that makes sense. I was thinking in the context of dumb terminals; teletypes were slightly before my time. -- see shy jo
RE: Basic Kernel Question
See below. Patrick Cheong Information Systems Assurance Measat Broadcast Network Systems e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit us at: http://www.astro.com.my -Original Message- From: Sean 'Shaleh' Perry [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 1:08 AM To: Jay Kelly Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: RE: Basic Kernel Question However for that to work you need to either a) compile support for the common file systems into the kernel or b) auto load all of those modules at boot. [CHEONG, Shu Yang (Patrick)] There is a module named autofs, which as I understand auto loads the necessary fs modules which have not been compiled into the kernel. Also, with this module loaded from modutils, you do not have to put the -t fs when doing a mount.. I you use msdos and vfat floppies often, then I'd suggest you either compile these into the kernel (personally, I prefer the other choice) or compile these as modules (my preferred choice) and have these automatically loaded during system startup. HTH -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Basic Kernel Question
Hello All, I keep running into a problem everytime I upgrade my kernel. Before I upgrade I can place a floppy into the drive and type mount /dev/fd0 /floppy with no errors. After the upgrade I do the same command I get an error about needing to specifiy the file format. What am I missing when I upgrade my kernel. Also I would like to add a basic firewall to just protect itself. I dont need ipmasq I just want to close all ports except one. What will I need to add to the kernel? Thanks everybody
RE: Basic Kernel Question
On 25-Oct-2000 Jay Kelly wrote: Hello All, I keep running into a problem everytime I upgrade my kernel. Before I upgrade I can place a floppy into the drive and type mount /dev/fd0 /floppy with no errors. After the upgrade I do the same command I get an error about needing to specifiy the file format. What am I missing when I upgrade my kernel. you should do mount -t vfat /dev/fd0 /floppy. Replace vfat with whatever format your floppy is in -- minix, ext2, msdos, etc. There is a auto option you can place in /etc/fstab for the floppy device. However for that to work you need to either a) compile support for the common file systems into the kernel or b) auto load all of those modules at boot.
Re: Basic Kernel Question
you should do mount -t vfat /dev/fd0 /floppy. Replace vfat with whatever format your floppy is in -- minix, ext2, msdos, etc. There is a auto option you can place in /etc/fstab for the floppy device. However for that to work you need to either a) compile support for the common file systems into the kernel or b) auto load all of those modules at boot. From memory you need module autofs or similar loaded or compiled into kernel. Anthony
Quickie Kernel question
My apologies if this is an rtfm situation, but I haven't been able to find the answer in my all-too-brief search. Do I need to download the kernel-headers package to compile a new version of the kernel? What the heck is that for, anyway? Thanks in advance... [EMAIL PROTECTED] [] Bababooey Dragon [] -==UDIC==- The stupider it looks, the more important it probably is. -- J. R. Bob Dobbs -- Babylon 5 Addict [] DEVOlved [] Dirty old man in training
Re: Quickie Kernel question
Nope. You can do this: apt-get install kernel-source-2.2.17 That will install a bzipped file in /usr/src which you can unzip with tar Ixvf filename Believe me - been there, done that, SEVERAL times in the last week. john On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Tim Jump wrote: My apologies if this is an rtfm situation, but I haven't been able to find the answer in my all-too-brief search. Do I need to download the kernel-headers package to compile a new version of the kernel? What the heck is that for, anyway? Thanks in advance... [EMAIL PROTECTED] [] Bababooey Dragon [] -==UDIC==- The stupider it looks, the more important it probably is. -- J. R. Bob Dobbs -- Babylon 5 Addict [] DEVOlved [] Dirty old man in training -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Re: Quickie Kernel question
Tim Jump [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My apologies if this is an rtfm situation, but I haven't been able to find the answer in my all-too-brief search. Do I need to download the kernel-headers package to compile a new version of the kernel? No, just download the debianized kernel-source-*.deb file, or apt-get it, or download the pure kernel source from your favorite kernel.org ftp mirror. What the heck is that for, anyway? I believe it's for other software that may not come as part of the kernel but very well may depend on the kernel. For example, I think VMWare used to require the headers, at a minimum, to compile from source. Look through the Packages file(s) and you can see if any other packages require or recommend a kernel-headers package if you're really curious. Gary
Re: Quickie Kernel question
On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 02:30:15PM -0400, Tim Jump wrote: My apologies if this is an rtfm situation, but I haven't been able to find the answer in my all-too-brief search. Do I need to download the kernel-headers package to compile a new version of the kernel? What the heck is that for, anyway? No, you don't. You'd only want the kernel-headers package if you installed a kernel-image package (instead of compiling yourself) and then wanted to compile something else (like modules) which need to use kernel headers. If you're compiling your own kernel, you already have the headers as part of the source. Tom
Kernel question
Greetings I have subscribed to this list server to find out more about non-Red Hat derivatives. Is the Debian distribution of the type that I can, when I want to update the kernel, download a complete kernel tar ball or a patch file from what ever web site I choose, install it, and have things function properly? The last coupe of times I did this to my current distro things went a muck. Fortunate for me I saved my current kernel and was able to boot from it. I didn't have too much problems with previous distro when I built custom kernels with it. I was able to get a kernel update from anywhere and go to town with it. I am basically shopping for a new distro. Thanks Walt Williams
Re: Kernel question
On Thu, Jul 06, 2000 at 12:14:13PM -0600, Walter Williams wrote: Greetings I have subscribed to this list server to find out more about non-Red Hat derivatives. Is the Debian distribution of the type that I can, when I want to update the kernel, download a complete kernel tar ball or a patch file from what ever web site I choose, install it, and have things function properly? Sure. The last coupe of times I did this to my current distro things went a muck. Fortunate for me I saved my current kernel and was able to boot from it. I didn't have too much problems with previous distro when I built custom kernels with it. I was able to get a kernel update from anywhere and go to town with it. If you use 'make-kpkg' to build the kernel (basically, it invokes all the 'make bzImage make modules' stuff for you, then spits out a .deb with the new kernel and modules), you'll have a kernel that can be installed or removed with 'dpkg (-i|-r) kernel-image-whatever.deb'. You could do it the old fashioned way as well, but I hate hunting down bzImage out of arch/i386 I am basically shopping for a new distro. Debian is a pleasure to use and maintain. I've now formatted Slack off two machines, RH off two and Mandrake off another. (Okay, so the Mandrake one booted precisely once with Mandrake and lasted a total of 10 minutes or so before I formatted it... :)) -- Brian Moore | Of course vi is God's editor. Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | If He used Emacs, He'd still be waiting Usenet Vandal | for it to load on the seventh day. Netscum, Bane of Elves.
Re: Kernel question
Walter Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have subscribed to this list server to find out more about non-Red Hat derivatives. Is the Debian distribution of the type that I can, when I want to update the kernel, download a complete kernel tar ball or a patch file from what ever web site I choose, install it, and have things function properly? In my experience, it is. The laptop I'm using has a 2.4.0-test3 kernel and the machine at home, dual Pentium 133MHz also runs a custom compiled kernel. I usually get the kernel tar balls from ftp.funet.fi. The Debian package system does not force me to use a precompiled kernel-image from a Debian package. // Heikki -- Heikki Vatiainen * [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tampere University of Technology * Tampere, Finland
Re: Kernel question
Walter Williams wrote: Greetings I have subscribed to this list server to find out more about non-Red Hat derivatives. Is the Debian distribution of the type that I can, when I want to update the kernel, download a complete kernel tar ball or a patch file from what ever web site I choose, install it, and have things function properly? Sure can. Fact is , that's how I been doing it. There's also the proper Debian method, called make-kpkg. If you go that route, make *sure* to add the epoch to the version number, or you'll wind up with the package management system trying to replace your kernel at some point. The last coupe of times I did this to my current distro things went a muck. Fortunate for me I saved my current kernel and was able to boot from it. I didn't have too much problems with previous distro when I built custom kernels with it. I was able to get a kernel update from anywhere and go to town with it. I am basically shopping for a new distro. Yeah, I've dealt with RedHat a couple of times. I put it onto my laptop, where it lasted all of about an hour before I got rid of it and went back to Debian. I find the package management under Debian - using apt - to be *much* easier than dealing with rpm's. apt also has far better dependancy handling than what I saw with RedHat. -- Mike Werner KA8YSD | Where do you want to go today? | As far from Redmond as possible! '91 GS500E| Morgantown WV | Only dead fish go with the flow.
Re: Kernel question
Walter Williams wrote: Greetings I have subscribed to this list server to find out more about non-Red Hat derivatives. Is the Debian distribution of the type that I can, when I want to update the kernel, download a complete kernel tar ball or a patch file from what ever web site I choose, install it, and have things function properly? Yeah, that's what I do. I never trust packages to correctly edit LILO etc., so I do it all myself :) The last coupe of times I did this to my current distro things went a muck. Fortunate for me I saved my current kernel and was able to boot from it. I didn't have too much problems with previous distro when I built custom kernels with it. I was able to get a kernel update from anywhere and go to town with it. RedHat is well-known for having an odd setup when it comes to kernel compilation, using symlinks and all manner of strange things. Took me a few hours to work it all out first time I tried cmopiling a kernel (which happened to be under RH5.2). I am basically shopping for a new distro. If you can stand the installation routine which may seem a little old and unconventional (installing a base system then configuring your main apps from there), then you'll have no problems. -- James Green Site Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] LinuxNewbie.com LNC [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Kernel question
:: On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 21:22:06 +0300, Heikki Vatiainen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: In my experience, it is. The laptop I'm using has a 2.4.0-test3 kernel and the machine at home, Where did you get a 2.4.0-test3 kernel? The last one I saw was test2.. There was also a test2-ac22, in Alan's directory, but I found no test3 anywhere... Was that a typo, or did I not really find the (actually existent) test3 kernel? Thanks, J. -- Jeronimo Pellegrini Institute of Computing - Unicamp - Brazil http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~jeronimo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get kernel question
Dean wrote: Hi Eric: Thanks for the reply. I checked and there is no ppp.o in /lib/modules/2.2.15/net, but there is in my old kernel at /lib/modules/2.0.36/net. Can I just copy that to my 2.2.15 file? Or do I need to make up a module? Dean You need to make a module (and tell the kernel to use it, etc..) New kernel time ;-) -- --==**==-- Ian Stuart - University computing services. - Truth is what you believe it to be. I cannot force my facts on you, only make you believe my beliefs. - http://lucas.ucs.ed.ac.uk/
Re: apt-get kernel question
Hi Eric:
Thanks for the reply. I checked and there is no ppp.o
in /lib/modules/2.2.15/net, but there is in my old
kernel at /lib/modules/2.0.36/net. Can I just
copy that to my 2.2.15 file? Or do I need to
make up a module? Dean
Eric G . Miller wrote:
On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 09:08:29AM -0500, Dean wrote:
Hi:
I recently upgraded to potato and decided to upgrade kernel to 2.2.15
same time. Everything went smoothly except I no longer have ppp
in the kernel. I still have the old kernel to boot to which has ppp.
You sure it's not available? Look for /lib/modules/2.2.15/net/ppp.o .
I'm thinking ppp should be available with the stock kernel (since you
can install Debian with 5 floppies and a dialup line).
My question is if I use the old kernel to apt-get something, will
this put whatever I install in the wrong place or doesn't the kernel
matter as far as where the packages go? TiaDean
Matters not a whit. However, a few packages may care which series of
kernel you're running.
--
#! /bin/sh
echo 'Linux Must Die!' | wall
dd if=/dev/zero of=/vmlinuz bs=1 \
count=`du -Lb /vmlinuz | awk '{ /^([0-9])+/ ; print $1 }'`
shutdown -r now
--
Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
apt-get kernel question
Hi: I recently upgraded to potato and decided to upgrade kernel to 2.2.15 same time. Everything went smoothly except I no longer have ppp in the kernel. I still have the old kernel to boot to which has ppp. My question is if I use the old kernel to apt-get something, will this put whatever I install in the wrong place or doesn't the kernel matter as far as where the packages go? TiaDean
Re: apt-get kernel question
The kernel doesn't matter AT ALL where the packages install, this is specified in the debian package. Ron Rademaker On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Dean wrote: Hi: I recently upgraded to potato and decided to upgrade kernel to 2.2.15 same time. Everything went smoothly except I no longer have ppp in the kernel. I still have the old kernel to boot to which has ppp. My question is if I use the old kernel to apt-get something, will this put whatever I install in the wrong place or doesn't the kernel matter as far as where the packages go? TiaDean -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Re: apt-get kernel question
Thanks Ron Dean
Re: apt-get kernel question
On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 09:08:29AM -0500, Dean wrote:
Hi:
I recently upgraded to potato and decided to upgrade kernel to 2.2.15
same time. Everything went smoothly except I no longer have ppp
in the kernel. I still have the old kernel to boot to which has ppp.
You sure it's not available? Look for /lib/modules/2.2.15/net/ppp.o .
I'm thinking ppp should be available with the stock kernel (since you
can install Debian with 5 floppies and a dialup line).
My question is if I use the old kernel to apt-get something, will
this put whatever I install in the wrong place or doesn't the kernel
matter as far as where the packages go? TiaDean
Matters not a whit. However, a few packages may care which series of
kernel you're running.
--
#! /bin/sh
echo 'Linux Must Die!' | wall
dd if=/dev/zero of=/vmlinuz bs=1 \
count=`du -Lb /vmlinuz | awk '{ /^([0-9])+/ ; print $1 }'`
shutdown -r now
Re: Unstable kernel question
Also unfortunately many people either have no idea about CMOS setup, or never fiddle with it. It should be a must to play with CMOS settings whenever you have a hardware problem or for performance/setup reasons. Check your devices i.e IDE slave/master, cabling e.t.c.
Re: Unstable kernel question
On Tue, 8 Feb 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, I just recompiled the 2.2.14 kernel (had to change gcc to gcc272 in 3 places in the Makefile), but it still hangs when I boot it. It hangs after: Decompressing Linux. OK, now boot the kernel. Your compiler has nothing to do with it. I don't think downgrading to 2.7.2 is a good move, since 2.95.2 is _MUCH_ better in many areas, including optimization. 2.95.2 is not compatible with 2.0.x kernels. 2.2.x are just fine. Seek for the problem somewhere else in the kernel, for example, DMA support. Disable some hardware dependent options in the kernel, recompile, and pinpoint the problem. Yes, that's pretty well my next step. Only one other thought that I have first. My root partition is 1023 cylinders for the well-known lilo/int13 issue. However, this cylinder numbering is the translated LBA stuff. Those 1023 cyls are actually more like 16,000 physical cylinders. I _assumed_ that the lilo/int13 issue would be OK with the BIOS/LBA view of the disk. Does anybody know for sure? It's possible that when I copied my old system to this new 27GB disk that the old kernel is under the physical 1024 cyls, but the newly compiled attempts would be beyond that. ...RickM...
Re: Unstable kernel question
On Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 04:52:24PM -0700, Rick Macdonald wrote: Yes, that's pretty well my next step. Only one other thought that I have first. My root partition is 1023 cylinders for the well-known lilo/int13 issue. However, this cylinder numbering is the translated LBA stuff. Those 1023 cyls are actually more like 16,000 physical cylinders. I _assumed_ that the lilo/int13 issue would be OK with the BIOS/LBA view of the disk. Does anybody know for sure? It's possible that when I copied my old system to this new 27GB disk that the old kernel is under the physical 1024 cyls, but the newly compiled attempts would be beyond that. ...RickM... END OF QUOTE No, LBA is fine, Leave that option on. As long as the kernel is under that limit, your machine should boot just fine. cfdisk is nice for a general view of your partitions. I personally have not used disks larger that 10 Gig, so don't know of other IDE limitations. I have had setups where my root partition was beyond 1024 cyl limit, (was also my last partitions for performance reasons) and I had /boot partition/fs with the kernel within 1024 cyl limit with everything working/booting fine. But if in case your machine came with EZ-Drive or other BIOS emulation (windows only) installed, you'll have to remove it.
SOLVED: Re: Unstable kernel question
On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, Rick Macdonald wrote: However, I just recompiled the 2.2.14 kernel (had to change gcc to gcc272 in 3 places in the Makefile), but it still hangs when I boot it. It hangs after: Decompressing Linux. OK, now boot the kernel. Your compiler has nothing to do with it. I don't think downgrading to 2.7.2 is a good move, since 2.95.2 is _MUCH_ better in many areas, including optimization. 2.95.2 is not compatible with 2.0.x kernels. 2.2.x are just fine. In my old kernel boot messages I noticed that the next thing to print should be the Console messages. So I went back into the xconfig and found that I had somehow turned off the virtual and vga consoles. It wasn't hanging at all, the messages just had nowhere to go. I've built and installed 2.2.14 with gcc 2.95 and all is well so far. ...RickM...
Re: SOLVED: Re: Unstable kernel question
On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, Rick Macdonald wrote: rickma So I went back into the xconfig and found that I had somehow turned off rickma the virtual and vga consoles. It wasn't hanging at all, the messages just rickma had nowhere to go. rickma rickma I've built and installed 2.2.14 with gcc 2.95 and all is well so far. ive read a few reports where the development of xconfig lags behind menuconfig/config, sometimes some serious bugs in it depending on which kernel rev.. i always use menuconfig, even in X.. nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]-- Vice President Network Operations http://www.firetrail.com/ Firetrail Internet Services Limited http://www.aphroland.org/ Everett, WA 425-348-7336http://www.linuxpowered.net/ Powered By:http://comedy.aphroland.org/ Debian 2.1 Linux 2.0.36 SMPhttp://yahoo.aphroland.org/ -[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]-- 12:58pm up 174 days, 1:12, 1 user, load average: 1.08, 1.03, 1.01
Unstable kernel question
Hi! I don't know if you remember some query about compiling a new kernel for Athlon based systems. Basically, my kernel just woudln't work. In the end, I found out that this wasn't due to a wrong processor or anything like that: it was due to the motherboard (WS-6167), and in particular of its IDE controller (Viper 756, IIRC). Right, AFAIK, 2.2.14 does not have Viper 756 controller, so no wonder my kernels weren't working! I downloaded 2.3.42 (the latest unstable), and had a go at it. Now, it sort of boots up, and it detects the actual chipset. This is the old output with 2.2.13 (as installed in the bootdisks) PCI_IDE: unknown IDE controller on PCI bus 00 device 39, VID=1022, DID=7409 PCI_IDE: not 100% native mode: will probe irqs later ide0: BM-DMA at 0xf000-0xf007, BIOS settings: hda:DMA, hdb:pio ide1: BM-DMA at 0xf008-0xf00f, BIOS settings: hdc:DMA, hdd:pio and this is the log for the 2.3 kernel AMD7409: IDE controller on PCI bus 00 dev 39 AMD7409: not 100% native mode: will probe irqs later ide0: BM-DMA at 0xf000-0xf007, BIOS settings: hda:DMA, hdb:pio ide1: BM-DMA at 0xf008-0xf00f, BIOS settings: hdc:DMA, hdd:pio However, the new kernel seems to splutter about. In particular, I had loads of segfaults, so I rebooted into my old kernel, which wouldn't boot up properly, as libm.so.6 didn't have a proper ELF header. I solved this by installing libc6 again, as libm is quite widely used. My question is: I don't want to live on the bleeding edge kernel stuff, but I'd like to compile a kernel with the Viper chip support (and whatever else that needs). Is there any way to patch my 2.2.14 sources so that this is possible? Thanks, José -- José L Gómez Dans PhD student Radar Communications Group Department of Electronic Engineering University of Sheffield UK
Re: Unstable kernel question
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 08:43:23 -0700 (MST) From: Rick Macdonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: aphro [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Unstable kernel question Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, aphro wrote: also check the compiler you are using (gcc -v) it is reccomended to use 2.7.2.3 when compiling a kernel, although there is some reports of success with egcs 1.1 and very few success reports using egcs 2.95. I wonder if this is my problem? I just built 2.2.14 on potato, but it fails to boot. It just hangs after saying OK, boot kernel now. I built it with 2.95. Maybe I'll see if the gcc272 package can co-exist with the gcc (2.95) package. Then, one would need to tell the kernel make which compiler to use. ...RickM... I build 2.2.14 on my potato/slink hybrid with gcc(2.95), and it boots without any problems. I updated gcc in December, along with a whole slew of packages, pointing apt-get at potato. Everything runs fine, no unexplained/unexpected problems at all. -Paul
Re: Unstable kernel question
On Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 07:20:44AM -0800, aphro wrote: 2.2.14 should work with the athlon, what cpu arch are you telling the config program you have? you probably need to tell it Pentium (unless there is an athlon option). from what i saw 2.3.x didn't have all the athlon patches from 2.2 yet but it was on alan cox's to-do list. if the kernel doesn't detect the chipset that is not unusual it just can't optimize for the chipset, standard drivers would work. I have tried all of them :-/// unsuccesfully that is :) Pentium, 586, 686... I'm not sure which one you have to use though... also check the compiler you are using (gcc -v) it is reccomended to use 2.7.2.3 when compiling a kernel, although there is some reports of success with egcs 1.1 and very few success reports using egcs 2.95. None of them seem too happy. Actually, booting breaks at the same point, irrespective of (i) architecture (ii) compiler version So the problem lies somewhere else, I guess... Regards, José -- José L Gómez Dans PhD student Radar Communications Group Department of Electronic Engineering University of Sheffield UK
Re: Unstable kernel question
On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, aphro wrote: On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, Rick Macdonald wrote: rickma I wonder if this is my problem? I just built 2.2.14 on potato, but it rickma fails to boot. It just hangs after saying OK, boot kernel now. I built rickma it with 2.95. Maybe I'll see if the gcc272 package can co-exist with the rickma gcc (2.95) package. Then, one would need to tell the kernel make which rickma compiler to use. yeah thats probably the problem.. if u figure out how to get them to co exist lemme know compiling kernels is about the only thing keeping me from upgrading my compiler.. i tried manual co existance with self installed compilers and used links for cc, gcc g++ c++ to point to the real binaries but it was a pain to do and i never remembered which one i had it set to. I just installed the gcc272 package, and they seem to co-exist just fine: timshel:~$ gcc272 -v Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/2.7.2.3/specs gcc version 2.7.2.3 timshel:~$ gcc -v Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/2.95.2/specs gcc version 2.95.2 2116 (Debian GNU/Linux) However, I just recompiled the 2.2.14 kernel (had to change gcc to gcc272 in 3 places in the Makefile), but it still hangs when I boot it. It hangs after: Decompressing Linux. OK, now boot the kernel. There seems to be a lot of disk rattling after that, but no more messages. Anybody have any idea about this? ...RickM...
Re: Unstable kernel question
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 08:51:17 -0800 (PST) From: aphro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Rick Macdonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Unstable kernel question Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, Rick Macdonald wrote: rickma I wonder if this is my problem? I just built 2.2.14 on potato, but it rickma fails to boot. It just hangs after saying OK, boot kernel now. I built rickma it with 2.95. Maybe I'll see if the gcc272 package can co-exist with the rickma gcc (2.95) package. Then, one would need to tell the kernel make which rickma compiler to use. yeah thats probably the problem.. if u figure out how to get them to co exist lemme know compiling kernels is about the only thing keeping me from upgrading my compiler.. i tried manual co existance with self installed compilers and used links for cc, gcc g++ c++ to point to the real binaries but it was a pain to do and i never remembered which one i had it set to. All you do is install gcc272 (apt-get install gcc272). This installs a binary called gcc272, which you then feed into the kernel's Makefile (read: substitute gcc for gcc272). However, 2.95 seems to compile kernels fine. I have used it for a couple of months for other boxes, and it was fine. I have kernel problems now, but I don't think they're due to the compiler... -- José L Gómez Dans PhD student Radar Communications Group Department of Electronic Engineering University of Sheffield UK
Re: Unstable kernel question
Hi, 1. The processor type option is to allow for a) some optimizations and b) using extensions to the cpu's instruction set that comes with the processor eg. amd k6 stuff or pentium stuff. The practical upshot of all this is that you can compile for a 486 and it should work on an amd k6 or an athlon. 2. If you are using potato, the default compiler should be fine. If you are using slink, then there should be packages for gcc272 (from memory anyway). There is the /etc/alternatives for specifying alternatives such as which compiler or editor or ... to use. If you don't want to muck around with this, you could just edit the kernel's Makefile thusly: HOSTCC =gcc272 CC =$(CROSS_COMPILE)gcc272 -D__KERNEL__ -I$(HPATH) 3. I think you should still be able to get the stable 2.2.14 to work despite it not directly recognizing your particular ide controller. This is shown by the fact that the kernels gave the same info about the ide drives. The kernel will just treat yours as any other ide controller. I wouldn't use a developmental kernel (ie 2.3.x) unless you know what you are doing. Unfortunately, I don't have your original posts but if you still having trouble you could try posting the info again. Regards, Mark.
Re: Unstable kernel question
timshel:~$ gcc272 -v Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/2.7.2.3/specs gcc version 2.7.2.3 timshel:~$ gcc -v Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/2.95.2/specs gcc version 2.95.2 2116 (Debian GNU/Linux) However, I just recompiled the 2.2.14 kernel (had to change gcc to gcc272 in 3 places in the Makefile), but it still hangs when I boot it. It hangs after: Decompressing Linux. OK, now boot the kernel. There seems to be a lot of disk rattling after that, but no more messages. Anybody have any idea about this? ...RickM... -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null END OF QUOTE Your compiler has nothing to do with it. I don't think downgrading to 2.7.2 is a good move, since 2.95.2 is _MUCH_ better in many areas, including optimization. 2.95.2 is not compatible with 2.0.x kernels. 2.2.x are just fine. Seek for the problem somewhere else in the kernel, for example, DMA support. Disable some hardware dependent options in the kernel, recompile, and pinpoint the problem. For example IDE DMA support. Better off, use SCSI.
