[gentoo-user] e17 - changes in USE flags
I noticed that the latest enlightenment overlay (revision 723) brought with it a number of changes in the USE flags (a lot of e_modules_everything are now disabled). One of them 'e_modules_fileman-opinfo' is both enabled and disabled ... o_O Why is this? [ebuild R *] x11-wm/enlightenment- USE=bluetooth e_modules_backlight%* e_modules_battery e_modules_clock e_modules_comp e_modules_conf-applications e_modules_conf-dialogs e_modules_conf-display e_modules_conf-edgebindings e_modules_conf-interaction e_modules_conf-intl e_modules_conf-keybindings e_modules_conf-menus e_modules_conf-paths e_modules_conf-performance e_modules_conf-shelves e_modules_conf-theme e_modules_conf-wallpaper2 e_modules_conf-window-manipulation e_modules_conf- window-remembers e_modules_connman e_modules_cpufreq e_modules_dropshadow e_modules_everything e_modules_fileman e_modules_fileman-opinfo%* --- e_modules_gadman e_modules_ibar e_modules_ibox e_modules_illume2 e_modules_mixer e_modules_msgbus e_modules_pager e_modules_shot%* e_modules_start e_modules_syscon e_modules_systray e_modules_temperature e_modules_winlist e_modules_wizard exchange nls pam spell udev ukit -doc - e_modules_ofono -static-libs (-acpi%*) (-e_modules_conf-borders%*) (- e_modules_conf-clientlist%*) (-e_modules_conf-colors%*) (-e_modules_conf- engine%*) (-e_modules_conf-fonts%*) (-e_modules_conf-icon-theme%*) (- e_modules_conf-imc%*) (-e_modules_conf-mime%*) (-e_modules_conf-mouse%*) (- e_modules_conf-mouse-cursor%*) (-e_modules_conf-mousebindings%*) (- e_modules_conf-profiles%*) (-e_modules_conf-scale%*) (-e_modules_conf- startup%*) (-e_modules_conf-transitions%*) (-e_modules_conf-wallpaper%*) (- e_modules_conf-window-display%*) (-e_modules_conf-window-focus%*) (- e_modules_conf-winlist%*) (-e_modules_everything-apps%*) (- e_modules_everything-calc%*) (-e_modules_everything-files%*) (- e_modules_everything-settings%*) (-e_modules_everything-windows%*) (- e_modules_fileman_opinfo%*) --- (-e_modules_illume%) (-hal%) 0 kB [1] -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: OT: Re: [gentoo-user] X Freezes With Firefox on Many Post 2.6.38 Kernels
On Sunday 31 Jul 2011 01:53:39 Peter Humphrey wrote: I hope you're pleased to know the process finished. 23 hours to move a partition! Never heard anything like it. Not unheard of. If you have too small/large bs and the disk is relatively large it will take quite some hours to get it transfered bit by bit. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: OT: Re: [gentoo-user] X Freezes With Firefox on Many Post 2.6.38 Kernels
Peter Humphrey wrote: On Saturday 30 July 2011 15:50:11 Dale wrote: Peter Humphrey wrote: One thing's certain: it's a good test of the USB disk! I just hope your power incident doesn't happen to me too. :-) That would suck. I sure did hate to lose my videos. I bet ATT does to since I have to go find them and download them again. :/ I hope you're pleased to know the process finished. 23 hours to move a partition! Never heard anything like it. All I have to do now is to persuade Win-XP to find the disk. No luck so far... I'm glad you wasn't in a hurry. lol Dale :-) :-)
Re: OT: Re: [gentoo-user] X Freezes With Firefox on Many Post 2.6.38 Kernels
Mick wrote: On Sunday 31 Jul 2011 01:53:39 Peter Humphrey wrote: I hope you're pleased to know the process finished. 23 hours to move a partition! Never heard anything like it. Not unheard of. If you have too small/large bs and the disk is relatively large it will take quite some hours to get it transfered bit by bit. How do you know what size bs to use? I didn't specify one when I did mine. Is there a auto option maybe? Just curious. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?
On Sunday, July 31 at 05:44 (+0100), Stroller said: Hi there, I kinda feel I'm opening myself up for ridicule in asking this, but I'm on x86 stable (i.e. not ~x86) and this behaviour seems to have changed recently. During a recent `emerge --sync` I received the an update to portage is available - you're strongly advised to take it message. I'm sure that in the past `emerge -u world` would update portage. Now: # emerge -up world These are the packages that would be merged, in order: Calculating dependencies... done! [ebuild U ] sys-apps/baselayout-2.0.3 [2.0.2] # emerge -up system These are the packages that would be merged, in order: Calculating dependencies... done! [ebuild U ] sys-apps/baselayout-2.0.3 [2.0.2] # emerge -up portage These are the packages that would be merged, in order: Calculating dependencies... done! [ebuild U ] sys-apps/portage-2.1.10.3 [2.1.9.42] USE=less%* # The answer to this, for me, is not to move to testing / unstable / ~x86 portage. Not on this box, I don't think, at least. I've seen that suggested here in the past as oh, everyone should be on ~86 / ~amd64 for portage (is that the 2.2 series of Portage??) and really I don't see the need for myself. The current version really does everything I need, and I'd rather stay as much x86 (stable) as possible. What I'm really asking for here is a sanity check: Is this the behaviour I should be seeing? Was I really seeing `emerge -u world` updating portage before? I don't really have a problem with `emerge -u portage` then `emerge -u world`, I'm just wondering if that's right. Is there a better way to include portage in my regular maintenance updates? Firstly, regarding the subject line. Portage isn't in world. It's in the system set. Secondly, I really don't understand the question. You are in x86/stable, ok I understand that... Even in stable software gets updated. Portage is a piece of software. There is an update. There's nothing unusual about that. What exactly is the question? You could choose to not upgrade portage (though I don't know why you would do that), but that would mean you won't receive any bug fixes it may have, or take advantage of any new features it introduces. Or things may simply not work :D What exactly are you afraid of? How long have you been using Gentoo that you've never had to upgrade portage before? Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the problem. -a
Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?
Am 31.07.2011 06:44, schrieb Stroller: Hi there, I kinda feel I'm opening myself up for ridicule in asking this, but I'm on x86 stable (i.e. not ~x86) and this behaviour seems to have changed recently. During a recent `emerge --sync` I received the an update to portage is available - you're strongly advised to take it message. I'm sure that in the past `emerge -u world` would update portage. Now: # emerge -up world These are the packages that would be merged, in order: Calculating dependencies... done! [ebuild U ] sys-apps/baselayout-2.0.3 [2.0.2] # emerge -up system These are the packages that would be merged, in order: Calculating dependencies... done! [ebuild U ] sys-apps/baselayout-2.0.3 [2.0.2] @system is part of @world, so that is to be expected. # emerge -up portage These are the packages that would be merged, in order: Calculating dependencies... done! [ebuild U ] sys-apps/portage-2.1.10.3 [2.1.9.42] USE=less%* [...] What I'm really asking for here is a sanity check: Is this the behaviour I should be seeing? Was I really seeing `emerge -u world` updating portage before? I don't really have a problem with `emerge -u portage` then `emerge -u world`, I'm just wondering if that's right. Is there a better way to include portage in my regular maintenance updates? TIA, Stroller. @system used to contain portage. It doesn't by default, anymore. If you do `emerge -pv --depclean`, portage should try to remove itself. Just add it to @world by doing `emerge --noreplace portage` Regards, Florian Philipp signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] fsck and mount by label
Am 30.07.2011 16:01, schrieb Michael Mol: On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 5:42 AM, Florian Philipp li...@binarywings.net wrote: Hello list! I've noticed the following in my rc.log file: [file system mounting ...] opt: clean, 3127/6496 files, 108510/209920 blocks fsck.ext4: Unable to resolve »LABEL=backup« * Operational error The backup disk is the only one (besides boot and root) which is mounted by label. After booting, I find that the backup disk was mounted correctly. If I then try to run `fsck.ext4 LABEL=backup`, it works as expected. Does anyone have an explanation for this? Could it be that the volume 'backup' is on isn't available yet? (i.e. brought up by lvm later in the boot process) I thought of this, as well, especially because it is a firewire disk. But then why is it mounted correctly? Regards, Florian Philipp signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: fsck and mount by label
Am 30.07.2011 21:37, schrieb Nikos Chantziaras: On 07/30/2011 12:42 PM, Florian Philipp wrote: Hello list! I've noticed the following in my rc.log file: [file system mounting ...] opt: clean, 3127/6496 files, 108510/209920 blocks fsck.ext4: Unable to resolve »LABEL=backup« * Operational error The backup disk is the only one (besides boot and root) which is mounted by label. After booting, I find that the backup disk was mounted correctly. If I then try to run `fsck.ext4 LABEL=backup`, it works as expected. Does anyone have an explanation for this? I had similar problems, but I never understood what's causing them. I solved it by using /dev/disk/by-label/backup instead of LABEL=backup. Interesting. I think I'll try it. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] e17 - changes in USE flags
On Sun 31 July 2011 09:27:09 Mick did opine thusly: I noticed that the latest enlightenment overlay (revision 723) brought with it a number of changes in the USE flags (a lot of e_modules_everything are now disabled). One of them 'e_modules_fileman-opinfo' is both enabled and disabled ... o_O Not quite, look carefully: e_modules_fileman-opinfo e_modules_fileman_opinfo See the difference? The latter (a typo) is being replaced with the former. emerge enlightenment, then run it again with -pv, you'll see that the old one will now be gone. Why is this? [ebuild R *] x11-wm/enlightenment- USE=bluetooth e_modules_backlight%* e_modules_battery e_modules_clock e_modules_comp e_modules_conf-applications e_modules_conf-dialogs e_modules_conf-display e_modules_conf-edgebindings e_modules_conf-interaction e_modules_conf-intl e_modules_conf-keybindings e_modules_conf-menus e_modules_conf-paths e_modules_conf-performance e_modules_conf-shelves e_modules_conf-theme e_modules_conf-wallpaper2 e_modules_conf-window-manipulation e_modules_conf- window-remembers e_modules_connman e_modules_cpufreq e_modules_dropshadow e_modules_everything e_modules_fileman e_modules_fileman-opinfo%* --- e_modules_gadman e_modules_ibar e_modules_ibox e_modules_illume2 e_modules_mixer e_modules_msgbus e_modules_pager e_modules_shot%* e_modules_start e_modules_syscon e_modules_systray e_modules_temperature e_modules_winlist e_modules_wizard exchange nls pam spell udev ukit -doc - e_modules_ofono -static-libs (-acpi%*) (-e_modules_conf-borders%*) (- e_modules_conf-clientlist%*) (-e_modules_conf-colors%*) (-e_modules_conf- engine%*) (-e_modules_conf-fonts%*) (-e_modules_conf-icon-theme%*) (- e_modules_conf-imc%*) (-e_modules_conf-mime%*) (-e_modules_conf-mouse%*) (- e_modules_conf-mouse-cursor%*) (-e_modules_conf-mousebindings%*) (- e_modules_conf-profiles%*) (-e_modules_conf-scale%*) (-e_modules_conf- startup%*) (-e_modules_conf-transitions%*) (-e_modules_conf-wallpaper%*) (- e_modules_conf-window-display%*) (-e_modules_conf-window-focus%*) (- e_modules_conf-winlist%*) (-e_modules_everything-apps%*) (- e_modules_everything-calc%*) (-e_modules_everything-files%*) (- e_modules_everything-settings%*) (-e_modules_everything-windows%*) (- e_modules_fileman_opinfo%*) --- (-e_modules_illume%) (-hal%) 0 kB [1] -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] e17 - changes in USE flags
On Sunday 31 Jul 2011 11:51:59 Alan McKinnon wrote: On Sun 31 July 2011 09:27:09 Mick did opine thusly: I noticed that the latest enlightenment overlay (revision 723) brought with it a number of changes in the USE flags (a lot of e_modules_everything are now disabled). One of them 'e_modules_fileman-opinfo' is both enabled and disabled ... o_O Not quite, look carefully: e_modules_fileman-opinfo e_modules_fileman_opinfo See the difference? The latter (a typo) is being replaced with the former. emerge enlightenment, then run it again with -pv, you'll see that the old one will now be gone. Ah! Yes, thank you. Sorry for getting dyslexic, or am I just getting old(er)? :)) Would you know why all these other USE flags are now disabled? -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?
On Sunday 31 July 2011 09:54:07 Albert Hopkins wrote: Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the problem. He's asking why upgrading world or system doesn't include upgrading portage. Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the problem. :-) -- Rgds Peter Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23
Re: OT: Re: [gentoo-user] X Freezes With Firefox on Many Post 2.6.38 Kernels
On Sunday 31 Jul 2011 09:49:33 Dale wrote: Mick wrote: On Sunday 31 Jul 2011 01:53:39 Peter Humphrey wrote: I hope you're pleased to know the process finished. 23 hours to move a partition! Never heard anything like it. Not unheard of. If you have too small/large bs and the disk is relatively large it will take quite some hours to get it transfered bit by bit. How do you know what size bs to use? I didn't specify one when I did mine. Is there a auto option maybe? Just curious. Sorry I was thinking of using dd to move/clone a partition, which allows you to set bs. Not sure how parted does it - it could potentially default to bs=512 for all but the latest large disks, which would make things slower I guess. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] e17 - changes in USE flags
On Sun 31 July 2011 11:59:46 Mick did opine thusly: On Sunday 31 Jul 2011 11:51:59 Alan McKinnon wrote: On Sun 31 July 2011 09:27:09 Mick did opine thusly: I noticed that the latest enlightenment overlay (revision 723) brought with it a number of changes in the USE flags (a lot of e_modules_everything are now disabled). One of them 'e_modules_fileman-opinfo' is both enabled and disabled ... o_O Not quite, look carefully: e_modules_fileman-opinfo e_modules_fileman_opinfo See the difference? The latter (a typo) is being replaced with the former. emerge enlightenment, then run it again with -pv, you'll see that the old one will now be gone. Ah! Yes, thank you. Sorry for getting dyslexic, or am I just getting old(er)? :)) Would you know why all these other USE flags are now disabled? No, you're just human (and being an old human doesn't help much either) - underscores and dashes are notoriously difficult to tell apart when on the same line :-) e17's ./configure no longer has support for --enable-everything-stuff which would explain why the extraneous USE flags were removed -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?
On Sun 31 July 2011 12:08:01 Peter Humphrey did opine thusly: On Sunday 31 July 2011 09:54:07 Albert Hopkins wrote: Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the problem. He's asking why upgrading world or system doesn't include upgrading portage. Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the problem. :-) It's sensible really - portage is not the only package manager out there and therefore should not be in @system. The user did not put portage in world, and did not use -D, so portage is not updating the package. The solution is simple - all users should put their preferred package manager into world and what Stroller is seeing will stop happening. Zac can't force portage into system like he could with less and nano and have few or non side-effects. A virtual package manager only says that you *have* one, not *which* one. So as usual for Gentoo, the user gets to tell the software which one it is. I don't see a problem. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?
On Sunday, July 31 at 12:08 (+0100), Peter Humphrey said: On Sunday 31 July 2011 09:54:07 Albert Hopkins wrote: Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the problem. He's asking why upgrading world or system doesn't include upgrading portage. Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the problem. :-) Yeah, sorry about that. I think my understanding was clouded by all the peripheral discussion regarding stable/unstable and different versions of portage. That and the fact that I had just gotten out of bed when I read it :P They OP could have simply said Hey, when I synced I saw a message that I there was a new portage available, but when I run 'emerge -up world' or 'emerge -up system' it doesn't show the updated package. Hooray. Nevertheless, as has already been said, yeah, it appears that system includes virtual/package-manager and not specifically sys-apps/portage (how diplomatic), so unless you run emerge with '--deep' or explicitly update the package name then it won't count. As for stable vs. unstable... I still don't understand what that has to do with it.
Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?
On 31 July 2011, at 10:02, Florian Philipp wrote: ... @system used to contain portage. It doesn't by default, anymore. If you do `emerge -pv --depclean`, portage should try to remove itself. Just add it to @world by doing `emerge --noreplace portage` Many thanks! Perfect answer. Stroller.
Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?
On 31 July 2011, at 13:15, Albert Hopkins wrote: Yeah, sorry about that. I think my understanding was clouded by all the peripheral discussion regarding stable/unstable and different versions of portage. That and the fact that I had just gotten out of bed when I read it :P They OP could have simply said Hey, when I synced I saw a message that I there was a new portage available, but when I run 'emerge -up world' or 'emerge -up system' it doesn't show the updated package. Yeah, I specifically wanted to stave off suggestions of you should unmask the ~86 versions of portage, anyway, as I think I saw that view aired fairly robustly in another thread recently and it's really not for me. I was also quite conscious of this because this seems to be a new change for me, but most of the users of this list seem to use ~x86 / ~amd64, so will presumably have encountered this change months ago. I googled, but I didn't find this change obviously documented anywhere. I probably used the wrong keywords, but I'd love to know where this *is* documented. It seems like the kinda thing that would be announcing. Stroller.
Re: [gentoo-user] How do I select a GTK 3 theme?
On 31 July 2011, at 00:56, Sebastian Pipping wrote: ... I got x11-themes/gtk-engines:3 from the gnome overlay installed so GTK 3 engines are there. My problem is I don't know how to set a global theme for GTK 3 (and the default is dead ugly). If it is file ~/.config/gtk-3.0/settings.ini then I haven't got that to work, yet. What's your recipe to select GTK 3 themes? Any quality links or guidance would be great. There's some discussion of theming and ugliness in GTK3 in Nikos' bug 374057. This really isn't my manor (so please forgive me if I'm mistaken) but you might find, e.g., comment 38 useful. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=374057#c38 There's mention of using the Adwaita theme and placing a symlink which appears to be required to get GTK3 to honour your theme selection. I'm just surprised no-one else more knowledgable than I has answered yet.
Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?
On Sunday, July 31 at 13:31 (+0100), Stroller said: Yeah, I specifically wanted to stave off suggestions of you should unmask the ~86 versions of portage, anyway, as I think I saw that view aired fairly robustly in another thread recently and it's really not for me. I was also quite conscious of this because this seems to be a new change for me, but most of the users of this list seem to use ~x86 / ~amd64, so will presumably have encountered this change months ago. I googled, but I didn't find this change obviously documented anywhere. I probably used the wrong keywords, but I'd love to know where this *is* documented. It seems like the kinda thing that would be announcing. I've not seen anyone on this list suggest switching to unstable as to fix a bug, though admittedly I don't follow all threads and even the ones I do follow I don't follow fully usually as the signal/noise ratio gets pretty bad over time. But anyway, this isn't even a bug, just a change of behavior. Where were you expecting this announcement. There usually aren't announcements on gentoo-user. However, it is stated in the ChangeLog (which is where you should alwaysb check first ;-). Also, there was a change to how portage handles virtuals, which was also discussed some weeks ago. But it may not have been done in stable then. They also removed flex, bison, and other things from the system profile. This has broken a few ebuilds (I think I created at least 3 bugs myself). Again, there wasn't an announcement AFAIK, you just have to check the ChangeLogs and bugzilla. Anyway I don't think they announce every change they make to portage, but they do seem to appear in the ChangeLogs. -a
Re: [gentoo-user] fsck and mount by label
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 5:06 AM, Florian Philipp li...@binarywings.net wrote: Am 30.07.2011 16:01, schrieb Michael Mol: On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 5:42 AM, Florian Philipp li...@binarywings.net wrote: Hello list! I've noticed the following in my rc.log file: [file system mounting ...] opt: clean, 3127/6496 files, 108510/209920 blocks fsck.ext4: Unable to resolve »LABEL=backup« * Operational error The backup disk is the only one (besides boot and root) which is mounted by label. After booting, I find that the backup disk was mounted correctly. If I then try to run `fsck.ext4 LABEL=backup`, it works as expected. Does anyone have an explanation for this? Could it be that the volume 'backup' is on isn't available yet? (i.e. brought up by lvm later in the boot process) I thought of this, as well, especially because it is a firewire disk. But then why is it mounted correctly? It might be brought up by an automounter later on. You might try removing the entry from fstab, and see if it still gets mounted. -- :wq
Re: OT: Re: [gentoo-user] X Freezes With Firefox on Many Post 2.6.38 Kernels
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Peter Humphrey pe...@humphrey.ukfsn.org wrote: On Saturday 30 July 2011 15:50:11 Dale wrote: Peter Humphrey wrote: One thing's certain: it's a good test of the USB disk! I just hope your power incident doesn't happen to me too. :-) That would suck. I sure did hate to lose my videos. I bet ATT does to since I have to go find them and download them again. :/ I hope you're pleased to know the process finished. 23 hours to move a partition! Never heard anything like it. All I have to do now is to persuade Win-XP to find the disk. No luck so far... -- Rgds Peter Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23 Ouch... that's a case of a read-write-verify with small blocks over USB showing just how slow USB really is, I think. Parted does things the safest way it can, and verifies things every step of the way, and I've even had it take several hours to transition a third or so as much data on an internal sata disk. Add in the limitations on speed of a USB bus and... well, 23hrs sounds about right to me... -- Poison [BLX] Joshua M. Murphy
Re: OT: Re: [gentoo-user] X Freezes With Firefox on Many Post 2.6.38 Kernels
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday 31 Jul 2011 09:49:33 Dale wrote: Mick wrote: On Sunday 31 Jul 2011 01:53:39 Peter Humphrey wrote: I hope you're pleased to know the process finished. 23 hours to move a partition! Never heard anything like it. Not unheard of. If you have too small/large bs and the disk is relatively large it will take quite some hours to get it transfered bit by bit. How do you know what size bs to use? I didn't specify one when I did mine. Is there a auto option maybe? Just curious. Sorry I was thinking of using dd to move/clone a partition, which allows you to set bs. Not sure how parted does it - it could potentially default to bs=512 for all but the latest large disks, which would make things slower I guess. -- Regards, Mick Well, GParted, if I recall, does a couple checks to guess 'best' block size when cloning or moving a partition, but I'm really not sure how it does things when shrinking and shifting it sideways to a spot that overlaps with where it started... but based on the above, I would guess it really does do a bs of 512, or ar best, the cluster size of the file system it is moving (usually 4k), since it's moving the data stored there, not the whole partition, block for block. -- Poison [BLX] Joshua M. Murphy
Re: OT: Re: [gentoo-user] X Freezes With Firefox on Many Post 2.6.38 Kernels
On Sunday 31 July 2011 14:15:20 Joshua Murphy wrote: Well, GParted, if I recall, does a couple checks to guess 'best' block size when cloning or moving a partition, but I'm really not sure how it does things when shrinking and shifting it sideways to a spot that overlaps with where it started... but based on the above, I would guess it really does do a bs of 512, or ar best, the cluster size of the file system it is moving (usually 4k), since it's moving the data stored there, not the whole partition, block for block. In fact it did run those tests, and it settled on a value of, I think, 16MB blocks. It then ran a read-only test of the entire file system, and only then started copying it. As it was moving the partition upwards by about half its occupied size, there was considerable overlap. That must mean that it started with the highest-numbered block and worked steadily (very!) downwards. I don't know where in the partition it ran its speed tests, but on a partition that occupies almost all the physical disk, as it did, there must be a considerable speed difference between its two ends. -- Rgds Peter Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23
Re: [gentoo-user] How do I select a GTK 3 theme?
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Stroller strol...@stellar.eclipse.co.uk wrote: On 31 July 2011, at 00:56, Sebastian Pipping wrote: ... I got x11-themes/gtk-engines:3 from the gnome overlay installed so GTK 3 engines are there. My problem is I don't know how to set a global theme for GTK 3 (and the default is dead ugly). If it is file ~/.config/gtk-3.0/settings.ini then I haven't got that to work, yet. What's your recipe to select GTK 3 themes? Any quality links or guidance would be great. There's some discussion of theming and ugliness in GTK3 in Nikos' bug 374057. This really isn't my manor (so please forgive me if I'm mistaken) but you might find, e.g., comment 38 useful. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=374057#c38 There's mention of using the Adwaita theme and placing a symlink which appears to be required to get GTK3 to honour your theme selection. I'm just surprised no-one else more knowledgable than I has answered yet. Hi Sebastian I ran across this but did not try it yet; https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=116652 I bet nirbheek would know :) All the best, David
Re: [gentoo-user] SSDs, swap, caching, other unusual uses
On Friday 29 July 2011 14:18:41 Michael Mol wrote: Something that's been tickling my brain for a couple years now, and you guys are probably the right ones to ask. I haven't dropped coin for an SSD (yet), but I was wondering about uses for them beyond using them for / or /home. 1) What about sitting swap (partition, file, whatever) on the SSD? NO! For $DEITY's sake- NO! ssds can't withstand many writes (yeah, I know, millions blablabla... earlier done than you think). Do Not Do This. SSDs are not meant for such a scenario. Presumably, in scenarios where expanding the RAM in a system is prohibitively expensive, an SSD could reduce the impact of swap thrash. no, it is increasing the impact of SSD trash. 2) While my system rarely goes above using 2-2.5GB of RAM, I enjoy having 6-8GB of RAM, just for the file cache. Of course, I lose that when I reboot; the cache needs to be repopulated. Has there been any work in the kernel for doing things like Vista/Win7's ReadyBoost? ReadyBoost has a ridiculous limit to only using 4GB of a flash drive, but I'd think that an 80GB SSD would be a massive performance improvement. with a SSD filecache is not that important anymore - and every usb-stick is slower than a SSD. Obviously, for something like Gentoo, putting an SSD-based filesystem under /var/tmp makes a lot of sense, but what other uses have been tried? How'd they work out? no, /var/tmp is very not important from a performance point of view - with the exception of /var/tmp/portage - and that is a candidate for tempfs. -- #163933
Re: OT: Re: [gentoo-user] X Freezes With Firefox on Many Post 2.6.38 Kernels
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Peter Humphrey pe...@humphrey.ukfsn.org wrote: On Sunday 31 July 2011 14:15:20 Joshua Murphy wrote: Well, GParted, if I recall, does a couple checks to guess 'best' block size when cloning or moving a partition, but I'm really not sure how it does things when shrinking and shifting it sideways to a spot that overlaps with where it started... but based on the above, I would guess it really does do a bs of 512, or ar best, the cluster size of the file system it is moving (usually 4k), since it's moving the data stored there, not the whole partition, block for block. In fact it did run those tests, and it settled on a value of, I think, 16MB blocks. It then ran a read-only test of the entire file system, and only then started copying it. As it was moving the partition upwards by about half its occupied size, there was considerable overlap. That must mean that it started with the highest-numbered block and worked steadily (very!) downwards. I don't know where in the partition it ran its speed tests, but on a partition that occupies almost all the physical disk, as it did, there must be a considerable speed difference between its two ends. -- Rgds Peter Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23 There probably is a fair chunk of difference in maximum speed the disk can work at on each end (I've even seen around a 20MB/s difference on several 160GB drives I've dealt with), but outside of some older drives that've been heavily abused in their lives, I'm not sure I've seen a sata drive that I've used my usual drive test (MHDD on a Hiren's bootable USB) on register below around 60MB/s on the slow end, and USB2's *theoretical* limit is 480Mb/s (60MB/s) ... real-world implementations rarely reach, let alone top, around 40MB/s, so disk speed variation across the disk is an unlikely source of the slowdown. More likely, it's the fact that parted has to start from the end, and work its way backwards, reading, writing, and verifying in separate rotations of the disk with no benefit from the drive's ability to stream a larger block into cache, since the whole process is backwards compared to the streaming read most drives are optimized for. Of course, this is all off the cuff conjecture on my part, including my assumptions about how parted approaches the whole task... mixed with a bit of anecdotal evidence on my end... but, makes for amusing conversation and contemplation, if nothing more substantial. I will point out that the newer advanced format WD 500GB blue's I've worked recently with pulled a consistent 120-110MB/s speed from end to end... when their older 320s usually peaked at around 85 or so. -- Poison [BLX] Joshua M. Murphy
Re: [gentoo-user] SSDs, swap, caching, other unusual uses
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: On Friday 29 July 2011 14:18:41 Michael Mol wrote: Something that's been tickling my brain for a couple years now, and you guys are probably the right ones to ask. I haven't dropped coin for an SSD (yet), but I was wondering about uses for them beyond using them for / or /home. 1) What about sitting swap (partition, file, whatever) on the SSD? NO! For $DEITY's sake- NO! ssds can't withstand many writes (yeah, I know, millions blablabla... earlier done than you think). Do Not Do This. SSDs are not meant for such a scenario. I'm not one to care what a tool was meant for, only what it can be used for. While I take your point about write-cycle limitations, and I would *assume* you're familiar with the various improvements on wear-leveling technique that have happened over the past *ten years* since those concerns were first raised, I could probably raise an argument that a fresh SSD is likely to last longer as a swap device than as a filesystem. Swap is only touched as-needed, while there's been an explosion in programs and user software which demands synchronous writes to disk for data integrity purposes. (Firefox uses sqlite in such a way, for example; I discovered this when I was using sqlite heavily in my *own* application, and Firefox hung for a couple minutes during every batch insert.) Also, despite the MBTF data provided by the manufacturers, there's more empirical evidence that the drives expire faster than expected, anyway. I'm aware of this, and not particularly concerned about it. Presumably, in scenarios where expanding the RAM in a system is prohibitively expensive, an SSD could reduce the impact of swap thrash. no, it is increasing the impact of SSD trash. False dichotomy. Yes, it increases the wear on the device. That says nothing of its impact on system performance, which was the nature of my point. 2) While my system rarely goes above using 2-2.5GB of RAM, I enjoy having 6-8GB of RAM, just for the file cache. Of course, I lose that when I reboot; the cache needs to be repopulated. Has there been any work in the kernel for doing things like Vista/Win7's ReadyBoost? ReadyBoost has a ridiculous limit to only using 4GB of a flash drive, but I'd think that an 80GB SSD would be a massive performance improvement. with a SSD filecache is not that important anymore - and every usb-stick is slower than a SSD. I'll poke the second argument first. I wouldn't use USB for something like this. USB2 is a painfully slow polling architecture. Something like this would need to be done with SATA. I'm *not* that daft. As for a filecache not being that important, that's only the case if your data of interest exists on the filesystem you put on the SSD. Let's say you're someone like me, who would tend to go with 60GB for / and 3TB for /home. At various times, I'll be doing HDR photo processing, some video transcoding, some random non-portage compile jobs, web browsing, coding, etc. If I take a 160GB SSD, I could put / (or, at least, /var/ and /usr), and have some space left over for scratch--but it's going to be a pain trying to figure out which of my 3TB of /home data I want in that fast scratch. File cache is great, because it takes caches your most-used data from *anywhere* and keeps it in a fast-access datastore. I could have a 3 *petabyte* volume, not be particularly concerned about data distribution, and have just as response from the filecache as if I had a mere 30GB volume. Putting a filesystem on an SSD simply cannot scale that way. Actually, this conversation reminds me of another idea I'd had at one point...putting ext3/ext4's journal on an SSD, while keeping the bulk of the data on large, dense spinning platters. Obviously, for something like Gentoo, putting an SSD-based filesystem under /var/tmp makes a lot of sense, but what other uses have been tried? How'd they work out? no, /var/tmp is very not important from a performance point of view - with the exception of /var/tmp/portage - and that is a candidate for tempfs. Did you miss the last week's worth of discussion of memory limits on tmpfs? -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-user] SSDs, swap, caching, other unusual uses
Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: no, /var/tmp is very not important from a performance point of view - with the exception of /var/tmp/portage - and that is a candidate for tempfs. Actually I recently tested that theory and it was faster when /var/tmp/portage was on a hard drive instead of tmpfs. I do plan to test this again tho. It doesn't make sense but that was the results. Dale :-) :-)
Re: OT: Re: [gentoo-user] X Freezes With Firefox on Many Post 2.6.38 Kernels
On Sunday 31 July 2011 15:17:16 Joshua Murphy wrote: There probably is a fair chunk of difference in maximum speed the disk can work at on each end (I've even seen around a 20MB/s difference on several 160GB drives I've dealt with), but outside of some older drives that've been heavily abused in their lives, I'm not sure I've seen a sata drive that I've used my usual drive test (MHDD on a Hiren's bootable USB) on register below around 60MB/s on the slow end, and USB2's *theoretical* limit is 480Mb/s (60MB/s) ... real-world implementations rarely reach, let alone top, around 40MB/s, so disk speed variation across the disk is an unlikely source of the slowdown. Sounds entirely reasonable, and I wasn't really trying to blame the slowness on that variation - just mentioning it in passing. More likely, it's the fact that parted has to start from the end, and work its way backwards, reading, writing, and verifying in separate rotations of the disk with no benefit from the drive's ability to stream a larger block into cache, since the whole process is backwards compared to the streaming read most drives are optimized for. Perhaps I'm naive here, but I should have thought an intelligent disk copying algorithm would be able to account for that, at least in part. Maybe that's why it ran the speed tests at the beginning. Of course, this is all off the cuff conjecture on my part, including my assumptions about how parted approaches the whole task... mixed with a bit of anecdotal evidence on my end... but, makes for amusing conversation and contemplation, if nothing more substantial. Indeed. I will point out that the newer advanced format WD 500GB blue's I've worked recently with pulled a consistent 120-110MB/s speed from end to end... when their older 320s usually peaked at around 85 or so. Well, I haven't run any proper tests, but watching gkrellm during an occasional large transfer I don't remember seeing more than half that lower figure. These are two Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB disks in md-raid with LVM-2, and I haven't fiddled with any of their settings. -- Rgds Peter Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23
[gentoo-user] glew/glewmx or what?
Hi, to compile the Mitsuba renderer I need glewmx (whatever this means). Postings on the net let me believe, that glewmx is a part of glew, which in turn is a gentoo package. But I found no USE-flags telling the package to build glew with glewmx...or I misunderstood the whole thing ... Can someone please shed some wise light on my shadowed mind so I will be able to embrace this holy glewmx love and peace? ;) --- very big!!! Thank you very much for any enlightment! Best regards mcc
[gentoo-user] jbd2 keeps spinning my disk up
Hello list, My little Atom box's hard disk spins up every minute or so, and watching iotop I see it's jbd2 that does it. This is a kernel component, and the menuconfig help text says it's set automatically by having the block layer included (and who hasn't?) together with ext4. Google shows that others have similar problems. Before I re-create all the partitions as reiserfs - and remove ext4 from the kernel - does anyone have a lighter solution? -- Rgds Peter Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23
Re: [gentoo-user] jbd2 keeps spinning my disk up
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Peter Humphrey pe...@humphrey.ukfsn.org wrote: Hello list, My little Atom box's hard disk spins up every minute or so, and watching iotop I see it's jbd2 that does it. This is a kernel component, and the menuconfig help text says it's set automatically by having the block layer included (and who hasn't?) together with ext4. Google shows that others have similar problems. Before I re-create all the partitions as reiserfs - and remove ext4 from the kernel - does anyone have a lighter solution? If it's a polling commit-journal-to-disk behavior, there's certain to be a configurable parameter somewhere to control the poll rate. However, if it's doing that, then it probably has something it needs to write to disk. That might be metadata updates. Have you tried adding things to your mount parameters like 'noatime' or 'relatime'? What about data=writeback? -- :wq
Re: OT: Re: [gentoo-user] X Freezes With Firefox on Many Post 2.6.38 Kernels
On Sunday 31 Jul 2011 01:53:39 Peter Humphrey wrote: All I have to do now is to persuade Win-XP to find the disk. No luck so far... I don't know what's your partition topology, but you may want to use: fixboot (to rewrite the partition boot record on the WinXP partition) fixmbr (to rewrite the MBR boot code on the disk MBR) with a MSWindows CD. If the partition of the WinXP installation is intact then the position of the partition on the disk may be causing you trouble, in which case play around with the GRUB hide and chainload options to hide other disks/partitions, so that WinXP thinks it is the first partition on the first disk. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] jbd2 keeps spinning my disk up
On Sunday 31 July 2011 17:05:39 Michael Mol wrote: However, if it's doing that, then it probably has something it needs to write to disk. That might be metadata updates. What, at least once a minute? While the system's idling, waiting for something to do? Doesn't sound likely to me. Have you tried adding things to your mount parameters like 'noatime' or 'relatime'? I've been specifying 'noatime' on all partitions for several years now; it's automatic behaviour on my part. What about data=writeback? I don't like the sound of the warning in the man page. Thanks for the ideas. So far I'm inclining to the reformatting I mentioned. -- Rgds Peter Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23
Re: OT: Re: [gentoo-user] X Freezes With Firefox on Many Post 2.6.38 Kernels
On Sunday 31 July 2011 18:20:02 Mick wrote: If the partition of the WinXP installation is intact then the position of the partition on the disk may be causing you trouble, in which case play around with the GRUB hide and chainload options to hide other disks/partitions, so that WinXP thinks it is the first partition on the first disk. In fact it is so, by design. I don't know what I did, but after enough reboots Win-XP was happy. Thanks anyway. -- Rgds Peter Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23
Re: OT: Re: [gentoo-user] X Freezes With Firefox on Many Post 2.6.38 Kernels
Peter Humphrey wrote: In fact it is so, by design. I don't know what I did, but after enough reboots Win-XP was happy. Thanks anyway. That sounds like winders. lol Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] jbd2 keeps spinning my disk up
On Sun 31 July 2011 18:39:21 Peter Humphrey did opine thusly: On Sunday 31 July 2011 17:05:39 Michael Mol wrote: However, if it's doing that, then it probably has something it needs to write to disk. That might be metadata updates. What, at least once a minute? While the system's idling, waiting for something to do? Doesn't sound likely to me. Sounds like the kind of thing cron would do - log something once a minute -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] glew/glewmx or what?
Hi, Am Sonntag, 31. Juli 2011, 17:09:08 schrieb meino.cra...@gmx.de: Hi, to compile the Mitsuba renderer I need glewmx (whatever this means). Postings on the net let me believe, that glewmx is a part of glew, which in turn is a gentoo package. But I found no USE-flags telling the package to build glew with glewmx...or I misunderstood the whole thing ... Can someone please shed some wise light on my shadowed mind so I will be able to embrace this holy glewmx love and peace? ;) --- very big!!! you could add -DGLEW_MX to your CFLAGS and emerge glew with this setting. Better way is to copy the glew ebuild to your local overlay and fix it to compile with this flag set. CFLAGS.EXTRA=-DGLEW_MX added to pkg_setup() might do the job. Thank you very much for any enlightment! Best regards mcc Regards, Michael
Re: [gentoo-user] r8169 unable to apply firmware patch
That fixed it. Thank you very much. I'm a little puzzled because I don't get the unable to apply firmware patch messages on my desktop which also uses the r8169 driver and doesn't have linux-firmware installed. Maybe you have an older firmware installed from a different package? Run emerge -p linux-firmware on that box to see if there's a blocker. linux-firmware is blocked by radeon-ucode and rt61-firmware, but now that I look closer I realize that ifconfig doesn't show an eth0 interface at all even though lspci -v shows: Ethernet controller: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL8111/8168B PCI Express Gigabit Ethernet controller ... Kernel driver in use: r8169 Shouldn't the eth0 interface appear in ifconfig once the r8169 driver is loaded? dmesg has no mention of eth0 or r8169. I guess linux-firmware is a package released by the kernel folks containing certain firmware blobs? It looks like rt73 is in there but not b43. Maybe these? /lib/firmware/brcm/bcm4329-fullmac-4.bin /lib/firmware/brcm/bcm4329-fullmac-4.txt /lib/firmware/brcm/bcm43xx-0.fw /lib/firmware/brcm/bcm43xx_hdr-0.fw /lib/firmware/LICENCE.broadcom_bcm43xx Right again. The contents of /lib/firmware/b43 and /lib/firmware/brcm are completely different, but you think either one will work with a b43 device? - Grant
Re: [gentoo-user] jbd2 keeps spinning my disk up
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Peter Humphrey pe...@humphrey.ukfsn.org wrote: On Sunday 31 July 2011 17:05:39 Michael Mol wrote: However, if it's doing that, then it probably has something it needs to write to disk. That might be metadata updates. What, at least once a minute? While the system's idling, waiting for something to do? Doesn't sound likely to me. Have you tried adding things to your mount parameters like 'noatime' or 'relatime'? I've been specifying 'noatime' on all partitions for several years now; it's automatic behaviour on my part. What about data=writeback? I don't like the sound of the warning in the man page. Thanks for the ideas. So far I'm inclining to the reformatting I mentioned. Here's what I think is happening: ext3/ext4 is not going to arbitrarily poll writes to disk without there being something to write. Some program, somewhere on your system is doing something that involves modifying a file. Any filesystem that provides guarantees about disk integrity is going to get that data to a physically persistent state ASAP. That's why we have journaled filesystems in the first place: to speed that up. So, with the same application and configuration set, you're going to see the same behavior on any filesystem which provides such guarantees. You're perfectly welcome to reformat if you're so inclined; it really sounds like you're simply more comfortable (or more interested in) reiserfs. If you perceive that that solve your problem, great--but I don't think that would really solve the underlying technical issue. What you really want to do is find some way to log what's actually driving the data writes. If it were a particular app, it'd be as simple as launching the app via strace and analyzing the output. I don't know how one would do that system-wide, though. Perhaps someone else might have ideas. -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-user] jbd2 keeps spinning my disk up
Am 31.07.2011 17:50, schrieb Peter Humphrey: Hello list, My little Atom box's hard disk spins up every minute or so, and watching iotop I see it's jbd2 that does it. This is a kernel component, and the menuconfig help text says it's set automatically by having the block layer included (and who hasn't?) together with ext4. Google shows that others have similar problems. Before I re-create all the partitions as reiserfs - and remove ext4 from the kernel - does anyone have a lighter solution? Does laptop-mode help? app-laptop/laptop-mode-tools Regards, Florian Philipp signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] SSDs, swap, caching, other unusual uses
Am Sonntag 31 Juli 2011, 10:44:28 schrieb Michael Mol: On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: On Friday 29 July 2011 14:18:41 Michael Mol wrote: Something that's been tickling my brain for a couple years now, and you guys are probably the right ones to ask. I haven't dropped coin for an SSD (yet), but I was wondering about uses for them beyond using them for / or /home. 1) What about sitting swap (partition, file, whatever) on the SSD? NO! For $DEITY's sake- NO! ssds can't withstand many writes (yeah, I know, millions blablabla... earlier done than you think). Do Not Do This. SSDs are not meant for such a scenario. I'm not one to care what a tool was meant for, only what it can be used for. While I take your point about write-cycle limitations, and I would *assume* you're familiar with the various improvements on wear-leveling technique that have happened over the past *ten years* yeah, I am. Or let it phrase it differently: I know what is claimed. The problem is, the best wear leveling does not help you if your disk is pretty filled up and you still do a lot of writing. 1 000 000 write cycles aren't much. since those concerns were first raised, I could probably raise an argument that a fresh SSD is likely to last longer as a swap device than as a filesystem. depends - because thanks to wear leveling that 'swap partition' is just something the firmware makes the kernel believe to be there. Swap is only touched as-needed, while there's been an explosion in programs and user software which demands synchronous writes to disk for data integrity purposes. (Firefox uses sqlite in such a way, for example; I discovered this when I was using sqlite heavily in my *own* application, and Firefox hung for a couple minutes during every batch insert.) which is another goof reason not to use firefox - but total used free sharedbuffers cached Mem: 81825567373736 808820 0 562522197064 -/+ buffers/cache:51204203062136 Swap: 23446848 82868 23363980 even with lots of ram, you will hit swap. And since you are using the wear- leveling of the drive's firmware it does not matter that your swap resides on its own partition - every page written means a block-rewrite somewhere. Really not good for your ssd. Also, despite the MBTF data provided by the manufacturers, there's more empirical evidence that the drives expire faster than expected, anyway. I'm aware of this, and not particularly concerned about it. well, it is your money to burn. Presumably, in scenarios where expanding the RAM in a system is prohibitively expensive, an SSD could reduce the impact of swap thrash. no, it is increasing the impact of SSD trash. False dichotomy. Yes, it increases the wear on the device. That says nothing of its impact on system performance, which was the nature of my point. if you are so concerned of swap performance you should probably go with a smaller ssd, get more ram and let that few mb of swap you need been handled by several swap partitions. 2) While my system rarely goes above using 2-2.5GB of RAM, I enjoy having 6-8GB of RAM, just for the file cache. Of course, I lose that when I reboot; the cache needs to be repopulated. Has there been any work in the kernel for doing things like Vista/Win7's ReadyBoost? ReadyBoost has a ridiculous limit to only using 4GB of a flash drive, but I'd think that an 80GB SSD would be a massive performance improvement. with a SSD filecache is not that important anymore - and every usb-stick is slower than a SSD. I'll poke the second argument first. I wouldn't use USB for something like this. USB2 is a painfully slow polling architecture. Something like this would need to be done with SATA. I'm *not* that daft. As for a filecache not being that important, that's only the case if your data of interest exists on the filesystem you put on the SSD. Let's say you're someone like me, who would tend to go with 60GB for / and 3TB for /home. At various times, I'll be doing HDR photo processing, some video transcoding, some random non-portage compile jobs, web browsing, coding, etc. 60gb for /, 75gb for /var, and 2.5tb data... my current setup. If I take a 160GB SSD, I could put / (or, at least, /var/ and /usr), and have some space left over for scratch--but it's going to be a pain trying to figure out which of my 3TB of /home data I want in that fast scratch. File cache is great, because it takes caches your most-used data from *anywhere* and keeps it in a fast-access datastore. I could have a 3 *petabyte* volume, not be particularly concerned about data distribution, and have just as response from the filecache as if I had a mere 30GB volume. Putting a filesystem on an SSD simply cannot scale that way. true, but all
Re: [gentoo-user] SSDs, swap, caching, other unusual uses
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: Am Sonntag 31 Juli 2011, 10:44:28 schrieb Michael Mol: While I take your point about write-cycle limitations, and I would *assume* you're familiar with the various improvements on wear-leveling technique that have happened over the past *ten years* yeah, I am. Or let it phrase it differently: I know what is claimed. The problem is, the best wear leveling does not help you if your disk is pretty filled up and you still do a lot of writing. 1 000 000 write cycles aren't much. Ok; I wasn't certain, but it sounded like you'd had your head in the sand (if you'll pardon the expression). It's clear you didn't. I'm sorry. since those concerns were first raised, I could probably raise an argument that a fresh SSD is likely to last longer as a swap device than as a filesystem. depends - because thanks to wear leveling that 'swap partition' is just something the firmware makes the kernel believe to be there. Swap is only touched as-needed, while there's been an explosion in programs and user software which demands synchronous writes to disk for data integrity purposes. (Firefox uses sqlite in such a way, for example; I discovered this when I was using sqlite heavily in my *own* application, and Firefox hung for a couple minutes during every batch insert.) which is another goof reason not to use firefox - but total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 8182556 7373736 808820 0 56252 2197064 -/+ buffers/cache: 5120420 3062136 Swap: 23446848 82868 23363980 even with lots of ram, you will hit swap. And since you are using the wear- leveling of the drive's firmware it does not matter that your swap resides on its own partition - every page written means a block-rewrite somewhere. Really not good for your ssd. Fair enough. It Would Be Nice(tm) if the SSD's block size and alignment matched that of the kernel's pagesize. Not certain if it's possible to tune those settings (reliably) in the kernel. Also, my stats, from three different systems (they appear to be using trivial amounts of swap, though my Gentoo box doesn't appear to be using any) (Desktop box) shortcircuit:1@serenity~ Sun Jul 31 07:03 PM !499 #1 j0 ?0 $ free -m total used free sharedbuffers cached Mem: 5975 3718 2256 0617 1106 -/+ buffers/cache: 1994 3980 Swap: 9993 0 9993 (laptop) shortcircuit@saffron:~$ free -m total used free sharedbuffers cached Mem: 1995 1732263 0169913 -/+ buffers/cache:648 1347 Swap: 3921 3 3918 (server) shortcirc...@rosettacode.xen.prgmr.com~ 23:05:34 $ free -m total used free sharedbuffers cached Mem: 2048 2000 47 0285488 -/+ buffers/cache: 1225822 Swap: 511 1510 Also, despite the MBTF data provided by the manufacturers, there's more empirical evidence that the drives expire faster than expected, anyway. I'm aware of this, and not particularly concerned about it. well, it is your money to burn. Best evidence I've read lately is that the drives last about a year under heavy use. I was going to include a reference in the last email, but I can't find a link to the post. I thought it was something Joel Spolsky (or *someone* at StackOverflow) wrote, but I was unable to find it quickly. My parts usually last 3-5 years, so that's pretty low. Still, having my swap partition drop (and the entire system halt) would be generally less damaging to me than having real data on the drive. False dichotomy. Yes, it increases the wear on the device. That says nothing of its impact on system performance, which was the nature of my point. if you are so concerned of swap performance you should probably go with a smaller ssd, get more ram and let that few mb of swap you need been handled by several swap partitions. This is where I get back to my original, 'prohibitively expensive' bit. I can get 16GB of RAM into my system for about $200. The use cases where I've been contemplating this have been where I wanted to have 60GB to 80GB of data quickly accessible in a random-access fashion, but where that type of load wasn't what I normally spent my time doing. (Hence the idea to have a broader improvement from something such as the file cache) And, really, the whole point of the thread was for thought experiments. Posits are occasionally required. As for a filecache not being that important, that's only the case if your data of interest exists on the filesystem you put on the SSD. Let's say you're someone like me, who would tend to go with 60GB for / and 3TB for /home. At
Re: [gentoo-user] r8169 unable to apply firmware patch
Maybe you have an older firmware installed from a different package? Run emerge -p linux-firmware on that box to see if there's a blocker. linux-firmware is blocked by radeon-ucode and rt61-firmware, I'm guessing that radeon-ucode and rt61-firmware and all the others are being deprecated in favour of linux-firmware, but i don't recall seeing an elog on it. but now that I look closer I realize that ifconfig doesn't show an eth0 interface at all even though lspci -v shows: Ethernet controller: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL8111/8168B PCI Express Gigabit Ethernet controller ... Kernel driver in use: r8169 Shouldn't the eth0 interface appear in ifconfig once the r8169 driver is loaded? dmesg has no mention of eth0 or r8169. That's odd. Does that box still have the failed loading firmware error? Perhaps missing firmware stops eth0 from being created. I'd try installing linux-fireware and trying again (assuming you havent already). I guess linux-firmware is a package released by the kernel folks containing certain firmware blobs? It looks like rt73 is in there but not b43. Maybe these? /lib/firmware/brcm/bcm4329-fullmac-4.bin /lib/firmware/brcm/bcm4329-fullmac-4.txt /lib/firmware/brcm/bcm43xx-0.fw /lib/firmware/brcm/bcm43xx_hdr-0.fw /lib/firmware/LICENCE.broadcom_bcm43xx Right again. The contents of /lib/firmware/b43 and /lib/firmware/brcm are completely different, but you think either one will work with a b43 device? The driver will know which one it wants. You could grep the source for the firmware file names to see which it pulls in.
Re: [gentoo-user] Error on freemind execution
Open java replaced with Sun java and now it is working fine. Tks, On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 11:41 PM, akio.tam...@gmail.com akio.tam...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Srdjan, Thank you, but *user.**properties* has all lines commented so I believe it is not the cause of this issue... USE=-gtk does not make any difference as well. Anyway I will keep trying to find out what is wrong... Regards, On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Srdjan Rakic srk...@gmail.com wrote: It looks like freemind looks for Look and Feel properties in /home/akio/.freemind/user.properties. user.properties is set to use java swing GTK library (GTK.LookAndFeel). Not sure how exactly that works but that is my guess. You might want to backup user.properties file and try to edit it (remove) GTK from there. Maybe emerging freemind with USE=-gtk would help? On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 7:46 PM, akio.tam...@gmail.com akio.tam...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, Just emerged freemind package and installation was fine, but when I try to run freemind it gives me the error as follows: $ freemind Looking for user properties: /home/akio/.freemind/user.properties User properties found. Default (System) Look Feel: com.sun.java.swing.plaf.gtk.GTKLookAndFeel *Gtk-ERROR **: GTK+ 2.x symbols detected. Using GTK+ 2.x and GTK+ 3 in the same process is not supported* aborting... Aborted What could be the cause of this error? I understood that this error is related to gnome3 or gkt3 but so far I did not do any kind of these packages installation so I am a little bit lost on this... Anyone could help me? Thanks a lot, Regards, Akio
[gentoo-user] make oldconfig necessary?
Let's say I have a .config from an older kernel version (for example, 2.6.38), and now I want to install a newer kernel (let's say, 3.0). Is it necessary to first do `make oldconfig`, or is it safe to go directly to `make menuconfig`? Rgds, -- -- Pandu E Poluan - IT Optimizer My website: http://pandu.poluan.info/
Re: [gentoo-user] make oldconfig necessary?
Better to run make oldconfig. It merges the changes. -- Jeremy McSpadden def...@uberpenguin.net On Jul 31, 2011, at 9:06 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote: Let's say I have a .config from an older kernel version (for example, 2.6.38), and now I want to install a newer kernel (let's say, 3.0). Is it necessary to first do `make oldconfig`, or is it safe to go directly to `make menuconfig`? Rgds, -- -- Pandu E Poluan - IT Optimizer My website: http://pandu.poluan.info/
Re: [gentoo-user] make oldconfig necessary?
Jeremy McSpadden wrote: Better to run make oldconfig. It merges the changes. -- Jeremy McSpadden def...@uberpenguin.net Yep. I always run make oldconfig then just run make make modules_install. Once oldconfig is done, the kernel should be configured and ready to build. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] make oldconfig necessary?
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote: Let's say I have a .config from an older kernel version (for example, 2.6.38), and now I want to install a newer kernel (let's say, 3.0). Is it necessary to first do `make oldconfig`, or is it safe to go directly to `make menuconfig`? Rgds, It is not necessary but you'll be starting from scratch. Linux often suggests that's the best thing to do but I've done make oldconfig for 12 years now and never had a problem that I could trace back to using it. It certainly saves time. I also ALWAYS run make menuconfig following make oldconfig mainly so I can exit from menuconfig and get messages (if any) about config problems. Hope this helps, Mark
Re: [gentoo-user] make oldconfig necessary?
On Jul 31, 2011 7:06 PM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote: Let's say I have a .config from an older kernel version (for example, 2.6.38), and now I want to install a newer kernel (let's say, 3.0). Is it necessary to first do `make oldconfig`, or is it safe to go directly to `make menuconfig`? You may also want to try make silentoldconfig
