Well you may be working around in circles,
LEAF (formally a subset of LRP) uses a specially patched kernel ...this
patch is NOT part of the standard Linux kernel that Linus releases in the
kernels....this is also where a normal kernel dies with a unable to mount
root error.
LEAF kernels have been ported from kernels 2.2.16, 2.2.18, and 2.2.19, with
some experimental (and unrecommended for now) 2.4.x kernels
I would recommend to you two things
1) Stick with the 2.2.16 kernel available from either my image or if you
need IDE support from
http://leaf.sourceforge.net/devel/cstein/files/kernels/2.2.16-1/
2) Seriously think about using a computer that's at least twice as fast as
that poor 486sx, I use a PacificBell ADSL connection that is rated (and
surprisingly I can get) 1.5mbit down and 124k up, but ive found that the
overhead in converting PPP packets to Ethernet packets (which is what PPPoE
does) causes a 486 computer to bog down and not be able to handle the DSL
connection with speeds over 500k.
A perfect example is that my LEAF box running my image is running on a
AMD586-133 (which is just a tad faster than a Pentium75) bogs down and hits
75% to 100% cpu usage with about 1.1mbit in transfers going....in fact im
planning on replacing it with a Pentium200 soon...
Of course these are from my tests and probably vary between ISP's
PPPoE was designed as a useful protocol for the ISP's and not for the users
-Kenneth Hadley
----- Original Message -----
From: "Zegane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 10:38 AM
Subject: LRP PPPoE
> Hello,
>
> I have a few questions about the LRP pppoe images you provided...no, there
> is nothing wrong with them.
> Here is the story:
> I'm trying to make my home network a gateway. So I searched the internet
> about a linux based gateway, that supports pppoe and nat. So I found LRP
and
> your images. Now i did not want to go rushing out to find a computer to
fit
> my needs. I thought that I'll first give a try to what I have. I have a
> 486SX with 8MB ram. I don't know if that is enough. Anyway the problem is
> that your images do not have math emulation compiled in the kernel. So I
> decided to roll my own. First I tried with the 2.4.5 kernel (it has
> netfilter and all...). But I got a strange error (Something like "fatfs:
> bogus logical sector size 0"). I searched the net and found out that it
had
> been an error in the 2.4.5-pre5 kernel. I did not know what version I had
> downloaded, so I downloaded a fixed version. But that gave me the same
> message. Now I thought that maybe it is because I left so many things out
in
> compiling the kernel to get it to fit on the disk (I even left the /proc
fs
> out). So I tried with 2.2.16. Compiled it with more options. Now I get the
> same error...but it is expressed a little differently. Anyway it ends
always
> the same. The kernel is panicking, because it can not mount root fs.
> The error with 2.2.16 is:
>
> RAMDISK:Compressed image found at block 0
> [MS-DOS FS Rel.12, FAT 0, check=n, conv=b,uid=0,gid=0,umask=022,bmap]
>
[me=0x0,cs=0,#f=0,fs=0,fl=0,ds=0,de=0,data=0,se=0,ts=0,ls=0,rc=0,fc=42949672
> 95]
> Transaction block size =512
> UMSDOS: msdos_read_super failed, mount aborted.
> [MS-DOS FS Rel.12, FAT 0, check=n, conv=b,uid=0,gid=0,umask=022,bmap]
>
[me=0x0,cs=0,#f=0,fs=0,fl=0,ds=0,de=0,data=0,se=0,ts=0,ls=0,rc=0,fc=42949672
> 95]
> Transaction block size =512
> [MS-DOS FS Rel.12, FAT 0, check=n, conv=b,uid=0,gid=0,umask=022,bmap]
>
[me=0x0,cs=0,#f=0,fs=0,fl=0,ds=0,de=0,data=0,se=0,ts=0,ls=0,rc=0,fc=42949672
> 95]
> Transaction block size =512
> Kernel panic:VFS: Unable to mount root fs on 01:00
>
> And with 2.4.5 it is:
>
> MSDOS: Hardware sector size is 1024
> fatfs: bogus cluster size
> Kernel panic: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on 01:00
>
> The problem can not be the disk. Because I tried with your original image
> (except...I took the dhcpd and weblet out, and decreased the ramdisk size
> for testing)...and it worked just fine.
> Can you tell me what is wrong?
> If you can not, then maybe you can tell me what kernel you used (where did
> you download it from). And with what options did you compile it. How in
the
> world did you get it so small. When I compiled my 2.2.16 with minimum
> options, I got a bzImage with the size of 510Kb.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Zegane
>
> PS. I have one more question. Too see if this messing around with floppies
> is really worth all the work. If I do not use my HD, can I shut down the
> power fan?
>
_______________________________________________
Leaf-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
