Re: please summarize amd64 installation steps
When I did a fresh install of Debian amd64 (couple years ago?) I booted from a live CD (ubuntu has a 64 bit live CD) and did everything from there. ie. partition the disk, create a chroot to where you want the deb root partition, install debootstrap etc and go from there. If you are that hesitant about doing an installation yourself, why don't you just download a copy of Ubuntu for amd64. I have computers running both. the differences are minor, but the installation is completely painless with Ubuntu, whereas I have never been able to say that about Debian. With Ubuntu the installation is pretty automated and lots of things just work ... things that I have to fight to get working in Debian (realplayer anyone?). Craig On 5/22/06, Francesco Pietra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi all: I have followed with particular attention in the last few days all issues on this list related to amd64 debian installation. Just because I have now finally everything ready for a fresh installation on a fresh ready workstation equipped with Tyan K8WE S2895 (bearing video card Pixelview 6600 256M DDR DVI and a scsi card for external devices), a couple of dual amd64 opteron, and a couple of 300GB SATA HD. For the benefit of poor guys like me who rarely carry out software installations, could you please check my projected route, and its sequence, for suitability/correctness? 1) Start with debian installer Debian testing amd64 Bin-1/ISO9660 [93 MB] (CD-ROM waiting on my machine) burned from debian-testing-amd64-netinst.iso [93.4 MB] as downloaded yesterday from http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/ 2)Follow substantially a netinstall according to Roberto's howto http://haydn.debian.org/~intero-guest/debian-amd64-howto.html 3)Establish raid1. To this regard, I am at "Today 21:19:28" directions by Alexander Siek. I understand Alexander has positively answered all (nearly all?) criticism by Goswin. However, I must confess that i use a pc with debian testing/unstable but I never established a raid before. Therefore, I only hope to be able to follow Alexander's indications but it would be better for me to read before some general instructions as to establish a raid1. I have none yet. 4)Install 32b applications into a chroot as indicated in both Roberto's howto above and, for what I need, ie not sound) in http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/356 without, however, following step 1.4) You also need a link to your 32bit linker in the /lib path: $ cd /lib $ ln -s /var/sid-386-chroot/lib/ld-linux.so.2 ld-linux.so.2 because I read somewhere that installed libraries are linked per se. I hope the kernel provided supports my mainboard and I wish myself good luck. But there cannot be good luck without some guidance. Thanks a lot francesco pietra -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sun-java5-plugin on amd64
Am Sonntag, 21. Mai 2006 23:04 schrieb Stephen Olander Waters: > Anyone know when/if the sun-java5-plugin package will be supported under > amd64? > > Thanks, > -s Look at www.tvbrowser.org, there you find: deb http://www.geole.de/ sid main contrib non-free regards Hans -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: please summarize amd64 installation steps
Francesco Pietra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi all: > I have followed with particular attention in the last few days all issues on > this list related to amd64 debian installation. Just because I have now > finally everything ready for a fresh installation on a fresh ready > workstation equipped with Tyan K8WE S2895 (bearing video card Pixelview 6600 > 256M DDR DVI and a scsi card for external devices), a couple of dual amd64 > opteron, and a couple of 300GB SATA HD. > > For the benefit of poor guys like me who rarely carry out software > installations, could you please check my projected route, and its sequence, > for suitability/correctness? > > 1) Start with debian installer > Debian testing amd64 Bin-1/ISO9660 [93 MB] (CD-ROM waiting on my machine) > burned from > debian-testing-amd64-netinst.iso [93.4 MB] > as downloaded yesterday from > http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/ If you can use sarge. That is the only one that will definetly work if your hardware gets recognised. > 2)Follow substantially a netinstall according to Roberto's howto > http://haydn.debian.org/~intero-guest/debian-amd64-howto.html Please try to follow the normal instructions from the Debian installer itself and report on shortcomings of the official documentation. This needs to be done by someone unfamiliar to spot things that are just done unconsciously on your 100th installation. > 3)Establish raid1. To this regard, I am at "Today 21:19:28" directions by > Alexander Siek. I understand Alexander has positively answered all (nearly > all?) criticism by Goswin. However, I must confess that i use a pc with > debian testing/unstable but I never established a raid before. Therefore, I > only hope to be able to follow Alexander's indications but it would be better > for me to read before some general instructions as to establish a raid1. I > have none yet. The D-I can instal directly onto raid. You just have to select manual partitioning instead of a preset menu. Everything will be done for you through the menus then. Everything except getting the other drives of a raid1 to be bootable if you use grub. > 4)Install 32b applications into a chroot as indicated in both Roberto's howto > above and, for what I need, ie not sound) in > http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/356 > without, however, following step > 1.4) You also need a link to your 32bit linker in the /lib path: > $ cd /lib > $ ln -s /var/sid-386-chroot/lib/ld-linux.so.2 ld-linux.so.2 > because I read somewhere that installed libraries are linked per se. Don't link the ld, just install the ia32-libs or libc6-i386 package that contain the ld and links directly. Anything else appears to cause problems on future upgrades. > I hope the kernel provided supports my mainboard and I wish myself good luck. > But there cannot be good luck without some guidance. Thanks a lot > > francesco pietra MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
please summarize amd64 installation steps
Hi all: I have followed with particular attention in the last few days all issues on this list related to amd64 debian installation. Just because I have now finally everything ready for a fresh installation on a fresh ready workstation equipped with Tyan K8WE S2895 (bearing video card Pixelview 6600 256M DDR DVI and a scsi card for external devices), a couple of dual amd64 opteron, and a couple of 300GB SATA HD. For the benefit of poor guys like me who rarely carry out software installations, could you please check my projected route, and its sequence, for suitability/correctness? 1) Start with debian installer Debian testing amd64 Bin-1/ISO9660 [93 MB] (CD-ROM waiting on my machine) burned from debian-testing-amd64-netinst.iso [93.4 MB] as downloaded yesterday from http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/ 2)Follow substantially a netinstall according to Roberto's howto http://haydn.debian.org/~intero-guest/debian-amd64-howto.html 3)Establish raid1. To this regard, I am at "Today 21:19:28" directions by Alexander Siek. I understand Alexander has positively answered all (nearly all?) criticism by Goswin. However, I must confess that i use a pc with debian testing/unstable but I never established a raid before. Therefore, I only hope to be able to follow Alexander's indications but it would be better for me to read before some general instructions as to establish a raid1. I have none yet. 4)Install 32b applications into a chroot as indicated in both Roberto's howto above and, for what I need, ie not sound) in http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/356 without, however, following step 1.4) You also need a link to your 32bit linker in the /lib path: $ cd /lib $ ln -s /var/sid-386-chroot/lib/ld-linux.so.2 ld-linux.so.2 because I read somewhere that installed libraries are linked per se. I hope the kernel provided supports my mainboard and I wish myself good luck. But there cannot be good luck without some guidance. Thanks a lot francesco pietra -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sun-java5-plugin on amd64
Anyone know when/if the sun-java5-plugin package will be supported under amd64? Thanks, -s -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Running a 64-bit kernel and a pure 32-bit userspace
"Fernando J. Rodríguez (Herr Groucho)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi! > I upgraded my IA32 system's CPU running Debian Etch with an Ahlon64 > processor. > After tracking the current state of affairs of amd64 on Debian, I > concluded it is not worth the trouble of reinstalling the operating > system and applications and get issues with OpenOffice, partly > mplayer, some binary-only games (Quake4, Enemy Territory), some > proprietary applications (Skype, Cross Over, Flahs plugin), and some > proprietary kernel drivers. > > I also dislike very much the idea of having a 32-bit chroot for those > applications, so what I would like to have is a "standard" 64-bit > kernel capable of runing both 32-bit a 64-bit applications, and a > pure 32-bits userspace (preferably my current Debian Etch IA32 > system). > > Is that possible and usefull? apt-get install kernel-image-2.6-amd64 (or something like that) in sarge. > I've seen messages on this list from people saying they were running > amd64-k8 kernels on 32-bit Sarge [1], but the only "k8" linux-image > packages I'm able to find in packages.debian.org are like [2], for > the "amd64" dpkg's architecture, so my current i386 dpkg refuses to > install it. You can just --force-architecture. > Are there somewhere "i386" packages of a Linux kernel for AMD64 > processors running in long mode? Or even in legacy mode? > > [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-amd64/2005/10/msg00769.html > [2] > http://packages.debian.org/unstable/base/linux-image-2.6.16-1-amd64-k8 > > Thanks in advance, > > Please CC: me in replies, because I'm not (yet?) subscribed to the > list. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Running a 64-bit kernel and a pure 32-bit userspace
Fernando J. Rodríguez (Herr Groucho) wrote: Hi! I upgraded my IA32 system's CPU running Debian Etch with an Ahlon64 processor. After tracking the current state of affairs of amd64 on Debian, I concluded it is not worth the trouble of reinstalling the operating system and applications and get issues with OpenOffice, partly mplayer, some binary-only games (Quake4, Enemy Territory), some Games are fine without a chroot - as long as your 3D hardware behaves (e.g. i play Quake 4 fine) proprietary applications (Skype, Cross Over, Flahs plugin), and some proprietary kernel drivers. I also dislike very much the idea of having a 32-bit chroot for those applications, so what I would like to have is a "standard" 64-bit kernel capable of runing both 32-bit a 64-bit applications, and a pure 32-bits userspace (preferably my current Debian Etch IA32 system). Is that possible and usefull? I've seen messages on this list from people saying they were running amd64-k8 kernels on 32-bit Sarge [1], but the only "k8" linux-image packages I'm able to find in packages.debian.org are like [2], for the "amd64" dpkg's architecture, so my current i386 dpkg refuses to install it. Are there somewhere "i386" packages of a Linux kernel for AMD64 processors running in long mode? Or even in legacy mode? dpkg -i --force-architecture somekernel_amd64.deb [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-amd64/2005/10/msg00769.html [2] http://packages.debian.org/unstable/base/linux-image-2.6.16-1-amd64-k8 Thanks in advance, Please CC: me in replies, because I'm not (yet?) subscribed to the list. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: install-mbr on amd64?
Hello, I now tested RAID1 together with grub by unplugging the 1st disk (to be sure, I tested with the 2nd as well). As you can read further up in this thread I did run 'grub-install --no-floppy /dev/sdb' to install the boot-loader in the MBR of the 2nd disk /dev/sdb. Then I halted the computer and unplugged the disk connected to the SATA0 port. The system booted without problem and /proc/mdstat displays only 1 active device in the RAID1: # BEGIN-CLI deb64a:~$ cat tmp/mdstat_unplug0.txt Personalities : [raid1] md3 : active raid1 sda6[1] 106896384 blocks [2/1] [_U] md2 : active raid1 sda5[1] 46877568 blocks [2/1] [_U] md1 : active raid1 sda2[1] 1951808 blocks [2/1] [_U] md0 : active raid1 sda1[1] 64128 blocks [2/1] [_U] unused devices: # END-CLI After halting the system I plugged the SATA0 disk in again and booted. I had to hot add the sda? partitions to the RAID1 with mdadm: # BEGIN-CLI deb64a:~# mdadm /dev/md0 -a /dev/sda1 mdadm: hot added /dev/sda1 deb64a:~# mdadm /dev/md1 -a /dev/sda2 mdadm: hot added /dev/sda2 deb64a:~# mdadm /dev/md2 -a /dev/sda5 mdadm: hot added /dev/sda5 deb64a:~# mdadm /dev/md3 -a /dev/sda6 mdadm: hot added /dev/sda6 # END-CLI It takes about 40 min to rebuild the 100 GB /dev/md3. After that /proc/mdstat shows a clean RAID1: # BEGIN-CLI deb64a:# cat tmp/mdstat_ok.txt Personalities : [raid1] md3 : active raid1 sda6[0] sdb6[1] 106896384 blocks [2/2] [UU] md2 : active raid1 sda5[0] sdb5[1] 46877568 blocks [2/2] [UU] md1 : active raid1 sda2[0] sdb2[1] 1951808 blocks [2/2] [UU] md0 : active raid1 sda1[0] sdb1[1] 64128 blocks [2/2] [UU] unused devices: # END-CLI Then I repeated the same, but this time I unplugged the disk connected to the SATA1 port. The system did boot without problems. Comparing the output of dmesg after unplugging SATA0 vs. SATA1 shows that I unplugged different disks each time: # BEGIN-CLI deb64a:~$ diff tmp/dmesg_unplug[01].txt | grep 'sd[ab]' #< SCSI device sda: 312581808 512-byte hdwr sectors (160042 MB) #> SCSI device sda: 312579695 512-byte hdwr sectors (160041 MB) #< SCSI device sda: 312581808 512-byte hdwr sectors (160042 MB) #> SCSI device sda: 312579695 512-byte hdwr sectors (160041 MB) #< sd 1:0:0:0: Attached scsi disk sda #> sd 0:0:0:0: Attached scsi disk sda # END-CLI Another proof is the output of mdadm -D /dev/md0' after the reboot with readded disk but before doing the hot add: # BEGIN-CLI deb64a:# cat tmp/mdadm_replug0.txt | tail -n 3 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 00- removed 1 8 171 active sync /dev/sdb1 deb64a:# cat tmp/mdadm_replug1.txt | tail -n 3 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 810 active sync /dev/sda1 1 00- removed # END-CLI As written before, the MBRs on /dev/sda and /dev/sdb are not identical. # BEGIN-CLI deb64a:~# dd if=/dev/sda bs=512 count=1 | od -v | head -n 8 1+0 records in 1+0 records out 512 bytes (512 B) copied, 2.1e-05 seconds, 24.4 MB/s 000 044353 150220 000274 175574 003520 017520 137374 076033 020 015677 050006 134527 000745 122363 136713 003676 002261 040 067070 076000 072411 101423 010305 172342 014315 172613 060 143203 044420 014564 026070 173164 132640 132007 001003 100 000377 02 01 00 001000 110372 173220 100302 120 001165 100262 054752 000174 030400 107300 107330 136320 140 02 120373 076100 177474 001164 141210 137122 076577 160 032350 173001 100302 052164 040664 125273 146525 055023 deb64a:~# dd if=/dev/sdb bs=512 count=1 | od -v | head -n 8 1+0 records in 1+0 records out 512 bytes (512 B) copied, 2.2e-05 seconds, 23.3 MB/s 000 044353 010220 150216 000274 134260 00 154216 140216 020 137373 076000 000277 134406 001000 122363 020752 06 040 137000 003676 002070 005565 143203 100420 177376 072407 060 165763 132026 130002 135401 076000 100262 072212 001003 100 000377 02 01 00 001000 110372 173220 100302 120 001165 100262 054752 000174 030400 107300 107330 136320 140 02 120373 076100 177474 001164 141210 137122 076577 160 032350 173001 100302 052164 040664 125273 146525 055023 # END-CLI On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 05:21:17PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Alexander Sieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > That is, also after changing sda to sdb in device.map, the > > two MBRs are not identical. > > > > Maybe Goswin, or somebody else who enabled booting from both > > disks with RAID1 and grub, can give the output of > > 'dd if=xxx[ab] bs=512 count=1 | od' on their system. > > I just dded the mbr from sda to all raid devices making them identical > the last time I installed. > After knowing that both disks are bootable with non identical MBRs, now it would be interesting to see, whether dd'ing the MBR of the 1st disk to the other disks also works. I leave this test for somebody else:
Running a 64-bit kernel and a pure 32-bit userspace
Hi! I upgraded my IA32 system's CPU running Debian Etch with an Ahlon64 processor. After tracking the current state of affairs of amd64 on Debian, I concluded it is not worth the trouble of reinstalling the operating system and applications and get issues with OpenOffice, partly mplayer, some binary-only games (Quake4, Enemy Territory), some proprietary applications (Skype, Cross Over, Flahs plugin), and some proprietary kernel drivers. I also dislike very much the idea of having a 32-bit chroot for those applications, so what I would like to have is a "standard" 64-bit kernel capable of runing both 32-bit a 64-bit applications, and a pure 32-bits userspace (preferably my current Debian Etch IA32 system). Is that possible and usefull? I've seen messages on this list from people saying they were running amd64-k8 kernels on 32-bit Sarge [1], but the only "k8" linux-image packages I'm able to find in packages.debian.org are like [2], for the "amd64" dpkg's architecture, so my current i386 dpkg refuses to install it. Are there somewhere "i386" packages of a Linux kernel for AMD64 processors running in long mode? Or even in legacy mode? [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-amd64/2005/10/msg00769.html [2] http://packages.debian.org/unstable/base/linux-image-2.6.16-1-amd64-k8 Thanks in advance, Please CC: me in replies, because I'm not (yet?) subscribed to the list. -- Herr Groucho ID Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Señal distintiva: LU5MJR - 144,550 MHz FM. Clave pública GPG: hkp://pks.lugmen.org.ar Fingerprint GPG: B7BD 0FC7 D9A2 66F3 4EFC 45EE 7DE2 3932 597B 6354
Re: install-mbr on amd64?
Alexander Sieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That is, also after changing sda to sdb in device.map, the > two MBRs are not identical. > > Maybe Goswin, or somebody else who enabled booting from both > disks with RAID1 and grub, can give the output of > 'dd if=xxx[ab] bs=512 count=1 | od' on their system. I just dded the mbr from sda to all raid devices making them identical the last time I installed. >> > I did not unplug or replugged the HDs, but I changed the >> > HD boot order in the BIOS, from IDE-channel2, -channel3 to >> > IDE-channel3, -channel2, and can boot in both cases. >> >> Is that the same as removing a disk or does that preserve sda as hd0 >> and sdb as hd1 and just boot from hd1? >> > I also think, that unplugging the 1st disk, is the only hard test > (and even that may not be sufficient to simulate a real crash). If a disk fails the system should keep running. Thats the point of raid after all. So when you do reboot it will usualy be to replace the disk. So I'm not much concerned if the system is still bootable with a broken disk still connected. It is likely the bios won't like that at all no matter what the MBR looks like. > Since the time I installed my system a couple of months ago, I would > like to test, how much work it will be to recover from a disk-crash. > So I am willing to test it the hard way by unplugging the 1st > disk. But this might take some time. Before doing that, I will > do a backup and figure out how to synchronize the RAID afterwards. Install qemu, install a base system with raid1 inside it, start qemu with just harddisk file. > This sub-thread fits better to debian-user or debian-boot, since it is > absolutely not related to amd64. Maybe there the chance is higher > to get people involved which already tested booting from the 2nd disk. > Maybe Goswin can report, if he unplugged it. Haven't rebooted once after installation yet. > I will inform you after the unplug test, if I do not shoot in my own > toe and mess up my system:-). It is my private machine and not a > production server, therefore it is not really critical, but I do > not want to spent too much time. > > Alexander MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: X700 + fglrx + debian-amd64 + xorg7.0 = running ?
Thank you! I did (almost) exactly what you said, and everything is working well, now. Before using Flavio's deb-src repository, I was trying to install drivers by using ATI's official installer, but it was probably outdated (or buggy). Thank you again, bye Andrea On Saturday 20 May 2006 23:08, Meshach Mitchell wrote: > Hi > > On 5/19/06, Andrea Bertagna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > I have the same problem with an Acer Aspire 5024WLMi (Radeon > > X700). After upgrading to xorg 7 my old fglrx stopped working, > > as expected, but I'm not even able to let xserver-xorg-video-ati > > driver work: X starts regularly (all processes are running as they > > should) but the screen is blank. > > It's not quite an X700, but I got a 9800Pro SE working with xorg 7.0, > maybe you can give it a try (you'll need some debian developer packages, > and kernel headers and the 'kernel-package' package if you want 3d accel) > as root, do: > > # echo "deb-src http://www.stanchina.net/~flavio/debian-official/ /" >> > /etc/apt/sources.list > # apt-get source fglrx-driver > # apt-get build-dep fglrx-driver > # cd fglrx-driver-8.24.8 (this is the version at the time of writing, > substite with whatever > version you find yourself with) > # debian/rules binary > # cd .. > # dpkg -i fglrx-driver_8.24.8-2_amd64.deb > # dpkg -i fglrx-control_8.24.8-2_amd64.deb (don't really need this) > # dpkg -i fglrx-kernel-src_8.24.8-2_amd64.deb (if you want 3d accel) > # dpkg -i fglrx-driver-dev_8.24.8-2_amd64.deb (don't really need this > either) > > this should get you at least in X, for 3d accel, do the rest: > > # cd /usr/src/ > # tar -xvjf fglrx.tar.bz2 > # cd linux-headers-2.6.x-x-... (whatever) > # make-kpkg modules > # cd.. > # dpkg -i > > then in your /etc/X11/xorg.conf file, in the 'Device' section > change the driver line to: > > driver "fglrx" > > then restart X, and you should be good to go (there is an ugly > hack advertised where you install the driver package using > --force-overwrite and then dpkg-divert libGL.so. This worked > for 32-bit but it won't for 64. > > How long should we wait for an Ati serious support? > > > Don't hold your breath, my next video card in an NVidia for > sure, for this reason entirely. I've seen _TONS_ more linux > support from NVidia that I've ever seen from ATI, in fact, more > recently, I get the feeling ATI is withdrawing the little suppport > they /did/ give, for instance fglrxconfig, which helps to customize > your xorg.conf for an ATI card, is no longer packaged along with > their driver binaries. > > Bye > > > Andrea > > > > On Tuesday 16 May 2006 21:33, Fielder George Dowding wrote: > > > Greetings Hans and everybody, > > > > > > I have an HP Presario zv6000 series (zv6201cl to be exact) which has an > > > ATI Radeon XPRESS 200M 5955 (PCIE) video chip. I was able to use the > > > proprietary ATI driver (fglrx) up through the 6.9 version of xorg. I > > > never could get the ATI Control feature to work although it installed > > > without complaint. I don't know about 3D effects having no applications > > > (games?) that required such. I was satisfied with the screen resolution > > > of 1280x800 that is native to the "widescreen" LCD monitor (13 inch; > > > 333mm). The only other xorg (<=6.9) driver that would work was the VESA > > > driver which produced 1024x768 resolution - horrible! > > > > > > I am running sid/unstable as I assume you are also. So, when the update > > > to xorg 7.0 arrived, I found the old proprietary driver did not work. > > > Actually, many things did not work. I had to do a completely new > > > installation (separate /home partition so I lost nothing there). The > > > move to the official Debian mirrors took place about that time, so I > > > don't blame the disaster on the xorg upgrade alone. Never the less, > > > when I got the new installation running, I found the ATI stuff (binary > > > and source) would not work. So I was without a GUI for a week or so > > > until the xserver-xorg-video-ati (6.5.8.0-1) module became available. > > > > > > xorg 7.x is apparently excuciatingly modular. Actually, I think this is > > > the greatest thing since sliced bread. Unfortunately, the transition > > > left me hanging out to dry for a week or ten days. > > > > > > The xserver-xorg-video-ati does not do 3D effects, so if that is what > > > your are seeking, you will have to pursue the fglxr proprietary driver, > > > at least for now. I do hope the xorg people (and the rest of us) can > > > convince the ATI leadership that FOSS/GPL is the way to go. > > > > > > Grüße, fgd > > > > > > Hans wrote: > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > does anyone got Xorg7.0 and ATI Card X700 (or similar) with ATI´s > > > > "fglrx" > > > > > > driver running ? I do, but without acceleration. Does anyone have > > > > acceleration got working on a pure 64-bit-system ? > > > > > > > > If yes, I would like to see his entries in xorg.conf. > > > > > > > > For me the driver works only wit
Upgrade hangs
Hi there, is there an automatic way, when a pakage refuses to install, if it wants to overwrite some things of another package ? Example: x11-common refuses to install, because some files are also used by the package "opera" and x11-common refused to overwtrite. My solution: I installed the package x11-common using "dpkg --force-all -i x11-common-.deb. While this is no Problem, other packages cannot be installed this way, especially essential packages, like libc6, where some links let apt stop installing. Very carefully deleting the links does work for me. But this solution is unsatisfied. Either apt, aptitude and synaptics are stopping, because they say, this is an error. I did not find an automatic way, to ignore these errors (these are in my opinion no real errors) Any hints ? Best regards Hans -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: install-mbr on amd64?
/dev/md0 /boot xfs defaults0 0 /dev/md1 noneswapswap /dev/md2 / xfs defaults0 0 /dev/md3 /home xfs defaults0 0 /dev/md4 /varxfs defaults0 0 /dev/md5 /var/logxfs defaults0 0 /dev/md6 /var/tmpxfs defaults0 0 /dev/md7 /tmpxfs defaults0 0 proc /proc proc Thanks very much for your time, I really appreciate the help I've gotten from all you guys so far very much! -- Kilian Can I once again suggest you to use ms-sys and do the following: # apt-get install ms-sys # ms-sys -s /dev/sda # ms-sys -s /dev/sdb Then mark in fdisk the /dev/md0 underlaying partitions as bootable. Reformat your /dev/md0 with ext3 filesystem as you can't install lilo in a xfs partition. Modify lilo.conf with boot=/dev/md0 root=/dev/md2 # lilo And your partitioning is too complex and you will get many problems in the future if you will want to change the size of any raid partition, so I suggest you to setup a large one raid array from md2-7 and put lvm on it. With a xfs filesystem you will get online resizing of partitions. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: install-mbr on amd64?
On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 09:38:16PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Alexander Sieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > After running 'grub-install' on /dev/sdb, both MBRs, on /dev/sda > > and /dev/sdb, contain the right data. > > Some data but the right data? The two MBRs should be identical or not? > Have you tried removing sda and boot or swap sda and sdb around and > boot? (below I see you haven't fully tested that) > Hello, maybe you got me wrong, since my wording was misleading. I think we agree on this: Without additional actions after configuring RAID1 and installing grub, the MBR on the 2nd disk contains mainly zeros. >From this it looks like the 2nd drive is not bootable directly. How to make the 2nd disk bootable is still not fully clarified and a proof of the approach is still missing. Goswin wrote further up in this thread, that the 2nd disk can be made bootable by switching sda to sdb in /boot/grub/device.map and running grub-install. He could not remember, if additional changes to fstab or mtab were required. I tried to not change device.map, but just run # BEGIN-CLI deb64a:~# grub-install --no-floppy /dev/sdb # END-CLI The option --root-directory=/boot was wrong, since this creates /boot/boot/grub. After running grub-install on /dev/sdb the MBR of the 2nd drive /dev/sdb contains _some_ data. By just looking at the octal numbers I cannot tell, if it is really bootable. > > # BEGIN-CLI > > deb64a:~# grub-install --root-directory=/boot --no-floppy /dev/sdb > > Probing devices to guess BIOS drives. This may take a long time. > > Installation finished. No error reported. > > This is the contents of the device map /boot/boot/grub/device.map. > > Check if this is correct or not. If any of the lines is incorrect, > > fix it and re-run the script `grub-install'. > > > > (hd0) /dev/sda > > (hd1) /dev/sdb > > > > Lets interleave the data for comparision: > > deb64a:~# dd if=/dev/sda bs=512 count=1 | od -v | head -n 12 > > deb64a:~# dd if=/dev/sdb bs=512 count=1 | od -v | head -n 12 > > > 000 044353 150220 000274 175574 003520 017520 137374 076033 > > 000 044353 010220 150216 000274 134260 00 154216 140216 > > > 020 015677 050006 134527 000745 122363 136713 003676 002261 > > 020 137373 076000 000277 134406 001000 122363 020752 06 > ... > > # END-CLI I as well had expected that the MBRs of both disks should be identical and do not know in the moment, if they need to be byte by byte identical. Now I have tested Goswins approach: # BEGIN-CLI deb64a:/boot/grub# cat device.map (hd0) /dev/sdb (hd1) /dev/sda deb64a:/boot/grub# grub-install --no-floppy /dev/sdb Installation finished. No error reported. This is the contents of the device map /boot/grub/device.map. Check if this is correct or not. If any of the lines is incorrect, fix it and re-run the script `grub-install'. (hd0) /dev/sdb (hd1) /dev/sda deb64a:/boot/grub# dd if=/dev/sda bs=512 count=1 | od -v | head -n 8 1+0 records in 1+0 records out 512 bytes (512 B) copied, 0.016311 seconds, 31.4 kB/s 000 044353 150220 000274 175574 003520 017520 137374 076033 020 015677 050006 134527 000745 122363 136713 003676 002261 040 067070 076000 072411 101423 010305 172342 014315 172613 060 143203 044420 014564 026070 173164 132640 132007 001003 100 000377 02 01 00 001000 100372 100312 051752 120 000174 030400 107300 107330 136320 02 120373 076100 140 177474 001164 141210 137122 076571 032350 173001 100302 160 052164 040664 125273 146525 055023 071122 100511 052773 deb64a:/boot/grub# dd if=/dev/sdb bs=512 count=1 | od -v | head -n 8 1+0 records in 1+0 records out 512 bytes (512 B) copied, 0.006904 seconds, 74.2 kB/s 000 044353 010220 150216 000274 134260 00 154216 140216 020 137373 076000 000277 134406 001000 122363 020752 06 040 137000 003676 002070 005565 143203 100420 177376 072407 060 165763 132026 130002 135401 076000 100262 072212 001003 100 000377 02 01 00 001000 110372 173220 100302 120 001165 100262 054752 000174 030400 107300 107330 136320 140 02 120373 076100 177474 001164 141210 137122 076577 160 032350 173001 100302 052164 040664 125273 146525 055023 # END-CLI That is, also after changing sda to sdb in device.map, the two MBRs are not identical. Maybe Goswin, or somebody else who enabled booting from both disks with RAID1 and grub, can give the output of 'dd if=xxx[ab] bs=512 count=1 | od' on their system. > > I did not unplug or replugged the HDs, but I changed the > > HD boot order in the BIOS, from IDE-channel2, -channel3 to > > IDE-channel3, -channel2, and can boot in both cases. > > Is that the same as removing a disk or does that preserve sda as hd0 > and sdb as hd1 and just boot from hd1? > I also think, that unplugging the 1st disk, is the only hard test (and even that may not be sufficient to simulate a real crash). Since the time I installed my system a couple of months ago, I wou
Uninstall 32bit env
Hi, actually I use only Firefox (for flash plugin) and wine for 32 bit env. They are both installed under 64 env and launched from there. Is it possible remove chroot32 and eventually how? Thanks, Giulio
