32 bit chroot and ld-linux.so.2
I'm installing a 32 bit chroot, following http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/356 First, there is a tiny typo under 1.2 -arch should be --arch Second, it says that I have to put a soft link in /lib to the ld-linux.so.2 in the chroot. My question is, given that I already have a ld-linux.so.2 in /lib, why do I need the link? Art Edwards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OpenOffice in chroot -- fonts?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Andrew, On 08/24/2006 09:20 PM, Andrew Robinson wrote: > Tried using xfs. I have more fonts now in open office, and the "Andale > Mono" is now available, but that didn't help > > What is interesting, is that the fonts are correct in the actual > contant (in oocalc, the fonts in the cells are fine). It is only the > windowing fonts (menu bar, dialog text, etc.). > > I'm wondering if it could be a gnome or kde config issue inside the chroot. > > Where do the font settings come from in the chroot (KDE, gnome, xfce)? > Outside of the chroot I am running XFCE with KDE support enabled. > > Thanks, > Andrew Have you tried changing the scale percentage in the user "interface" tab under the Options?? I used it to scale the text of the entire OOo window. I set it up to 95% and it's quite acceptable. It's not the perfect solution, but it's a solution ;-) Just my 2 cents. Greetings. mfv - -- Matteo Vescovi System Administrator Studio Vescovi Progettazioni GPG Fingerprint: 8EF0 F019 80D1 96BF C9C6 387E D6DE 031F 991F 9D2D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFE7f9o1t4DH5kfnS0RAn/8AKCxnSRgT+Iqx1wE9xY4iGsEer0zpgCaAn0f GVNxD9ijmLE+7TM6qt/ia3Y= =X61L -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OpenOffice in chroot -- fonts?
Tried using xfs. I have more fonts now in open office, and the "Andale Mono" is now available, but that didn't help What is interesting, is that the fonts are correct in the actual contant (in oocalc, the fonts in the cells are fine). It is only the windowing fonts (menu bar, dialog text, etc.). I'm wondering if it could be a gnome or kde config issue inside the chroot. Where do the font settings come from in the chroot (KDE, gnome, xfce)? Outside of the chroot I am running XFCE with KDE support enabled. Thanks, Andrew On 8/21/06, Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Andrew Robinson wrote: > I managed to get openoffice to install fine in a ia32 chroot > environment (from pages like [1]). It runs okay, but everything is > extremely large. The fonts (menu bars, dialogs, etc.) are about 18pt > font or so (buttons in the dialogs are huge). > > I'm not sure if this is a dpi, font or resolution problem. Would > appreciate some advice. I'm starting to debate ditching amd64 for i386 > as much as I'd hate to to avoid all these problems (mplayer & codecs, > flash in firefox, openoffice, wine, etc.). > Use a font server like xfs. That way, the same fonts will be available to 32-bit and 64-bit software. Alternatively, install your font collection in the chroot too. Helge Hafting -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ATI driver slow: which way to look ?
On 24-Aug-2006 15:33.56 (BST), Hans-J. Ullrich wrote: > I have a 64-Bit notebook with installed ia32-libs. My graphic-card is a X700 > made by ATI (yes, ATI sux !) and Xorg7. > > All 3D-acceleration functions are accessible and working, But they work real > slow. I do not think, it is the driver itself. [snip] > What I want to say is: I do not believe, that the driver is buggy, I > believe, > something else but the drivver makes the graphics slow (glxgears shows > 50FPS, > I wrote some about it some times ago) The driver may be appearing to work fine in as much as you're seeing a 2D visual just fine. If DRI is not activated then mesa will fall back to software rendering, which may be the reason why you are seeing the slowdowns you are experiencing (glxgears will work even if DRI isn't enabled). Easiest way to tell is to run 'glxinfo'. This will display information on the GLX extension. You should look at the top of the output, which will tell you if you are using direct rendering, namely: name of display: :0.0 display: :0 screen: 0 direct rendering: Yes Note that if it reads "direct rendering: No", then you are using software rendering which will explain why you are seeing slow performance. I was until recently using an ATI Radeon X700. DRI did not work without pulling bits of source, adding the PCI ID of the card I had to the list of the X700 cards and rebuilding the package - the list was not complete at the time. This may still be the case. If that's the case, you'll need to check that your card is listed in the X700 cards within the source of mesa - apt-get install source mesa, inspect the PCI IDs and rebuild. HTH, rob -- rob andrews :: pgp 0x01e00563 :: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ATI driver slow: which way to look ?
Hans-J. Ullrich wrote: Hi all, this time I am looking for a way to find out a problem and to understand, how things are working. I have a 64-Bit notebook with installed ia32-libs. My graphic-card is a X700 made by ATI (yes, ATI sux !) and Xorg7. All 3D-acceleration functions are accessible and working, But they work real slow. I do not think, it is the driver itself. Please Imagine it is sure, the driver itself and the kernel-module are o.k. , and imagine there is no mistake either in the driver nor in the kernel-module and all is loaded correctly, then IMO the error must be somewhere else. How can I check the rest of the graphics-environment ? Are there any ways i.e. to proove the speed of my pcie-bus ? Are there any ways, to proove, if some other things make my system slow , maybe some other modules/software which conflict with the graphics ? What I want to say is: I do not believe, that the driver is buggy, I believe, something else but the drivver makes the graphics slow (glxgears shows 50FPS, I wrote some about it some times ago) And this is just what I try to find out. I do have the hope, that some graphical expert might show me another way, how to check. I am always fond of learning something new ! Best regards Hans glxgears is a fillrate test, not a benchmark. Its main use is in determining whether you have 3D acceleration or not. Less than 100 is most definitely *not* accelerated. My office desktop (Radeon 9200SE, FGLRX) gets about 1100 FPS, my laptop (Intel GMA900) gets about 1000FPS, my home desktop (nVidia 6800GT) gets about 15000 FPS. Try increasing your AGP aperture size in your BIOS to something like 256MiB (you may need to use a 'secret' key combination to access that setting, Gigabyte desktop boards hide it behind ctrl-f1) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ATI driver slow: which way to look ?
First place to look would be /var/log/Xorg.0.log (use the latest Xorg log file after the X server is started). Perhaps it isn't able to allocate enough memory (for shared memory graphics)? -- Bhaskar S. Manda > From: Hans-J. Ullrich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > All 3D-acceleration functions are accessible and working, But > they work real slow. I do not think, it is the driver itself. >... > How can I check the rest of the graphics-environment ? Are > there any ways i.e.
ATI driver slow: which way to look ?
Hi all, this time I am looking for a way to find out a problem and to understand, how things are working. I have a 64-Bit notebook with installed ia32-libs. My graphic-card is a X700 made by ATI (yes, ATI sux !) and Xorg7. All 3D-acceleration functions are accessible and working, But they work real slow. I do not think, it is the driver itself. Please Imagine it is sure, the driver itself and the kernel-module are o.k. , and imagine there is no mistake either in the driver nor in the kernel-module and all is loaded correctly, then IMO the error must be somewhere else. How can I check the rest of the graphics-environment ? Are there any ways i.e. to proove the speed of my pcie-bus ? Are there any ways, to proove, if some other things make my system slow , maybe some other modules/software which conflict with the graphics ? What I want to say is: I do not believe, that the driver is buggy, I believe, something else but the drivver makes the graphics slow (glxgears shows 50FPS, I wrote some about it some times ago) And this is just what I try to find out. I do have the hope, that some graphical expert might show me another way, how to check. I am always fond of learning something new ! Best regards Hans -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ATA abnormal status
On Thursday 24 August 2006 11:08, Daniel Tryba wrote: > On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 10:16:30PM +0200, Francesco Pietra wrote: > [snip] > > > Any guess at what that means? I naively understand it was failure by the > > OS, not failure of hardware. > > I had the same errors on a Tyan K8SSA and first thought it was a > software/kernel problem with the sata controller/driver. But then one > disk suddenly died (no problems where found til the failure (smartctl)) > and got replaced by a new one. The machine has been running flawless > since. > > It might be a coincidence, but just to show you you might have a > hardware problem. My motherboard is Tyan K8WE S2895 with a couple of dualopteron, recently assembled. The HD are 300GB, cheap type (unfortunate choice). Could you please tell me if smartmontools and smartd are in conflict with one another? I have both /etc/smartd.conf and /etc/default/smartmontools SMART id disabled, therefore smartctl does not work, asking to activate SMART. I see in /etc/dafult/smartmontools that activation of the latter is undesirable if control is through smartd. I would be much indebted for guidance as to setting smartmontools or/and smartd. Kernel is Linux deb64 2.6.15-1-amd64-k8-smp Mon Mar 20 11:41:50 UTC 2006 I did not manage to get a 16 or 17 because the machine is connected to internet only during update/upgrade from debian site. Not using X system, although it is installed and working. I use for internet a i386 pc. As to the cables, well let me first manage the disk tools The machine is now carrying out a many-days computation but it can be killed and restarted from the last data. Thanks for answering. Cheers francesco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ATA abnormal status
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 10:16:30PM +0200, Francesco Pietra wrote: [snip] > Any guess at what that means? I naively understand it was failure by the OS, > not failure of hardware. I had the same errors on a Tyan K8SSA and first thought it was a software/kernel problem with the sata controller/driver. But then one disk suddenly died (no problems where found til the failure (smartctl)) and got replaced by a new one. The machine has been running flawless since. It might be a coincidence, but just to show you you might have a hardware problem. -- When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all. Daniel Tryba -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ATA abnormal status
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 10:16:30PM +0200, Francesco Pietra wrote: > While computing with mpqc2.3.1 (debian etch amd6a; dual opterons; 8GB ram > ECC; > raid 1; filesystem ext3; grub on its own partition): > > Led of HD permanently lighted. > > Messages on screen: > > ATA: abnormal status 0x58 on port 0x1C5F > ata3: command 0x35 timeout, stat 0x50 host_stat 0x24 > ata 4: same as above for ata3 > > Trying: > $ df -h > > sd 3:0:0:0 SCSI error return code 0x802 > Additional sense : SCSI parity error > end request: I/O error, dev sda, sector 47748992 Hmm, SATA drive, probably old kernel, sense code not yet mapped to ATA sense codes. SCSI parity error means cable problem, IIRC this is mapped to the ATA "CRC error", which also means bad cable. > Later: > raid1 Disk failure on sd6, disabling device > raid1 :sdb3: redirecting another mirror > > RAID1 conf printout > --- wd:1 rd:2 > disk1, wo:0, o:1, dev: sdb8 > ___ > > I cold only switch power off because it did not respond to down commands. > ___ > > Rebooting, the $ prompt was obtained without warnings. > > Then I looked at > /etc/fstab > > and issued: > > #fdisk /dev/sda > # p > #fdisk /dev/sdb > # p > #df -h > > there was nothing wrong: both disks identical to before. > __ > > Similar hanging already occurred on 3 August (it was already ext3 filesystem) > during similar computation with mpqc. There was nothing wrong after rebooting > and up to now there was no anomaly. I checked disks and ram. > > Before that, when using raiser 3.6 filesystem, I had many problems with > debian > while carrying out mpqc computations . Therefore, I changed to ext3. > > Thread computations with mpqc for without interruption many days are big > stress to the system (mostly for memory because mpqc writes sparingly on HD). > ___-- > > Any guess at what that means? I naively understand it was failure by the OS, > not failure of hardware. I guess hardware failure. Replace cables and see if that fixes your problem. Would be nice to know some more details: kernel version, hardware (what sata controller, what drives). Erik -- +-- Erik Mouw -- www.harddisk-recovery.com -- +31 70 370 12 90 -- | Lab address: Delftechpark 26, 2628 XH, Delft, The Netherlands -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
