Re: The time has come (part II) ...
On Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 10:04:12AM +1100, Anton Blanchard wrote: which kernel will we use as standard kernel ? 2.0.35 is pretty stable for me but it's not completely stable because the virtual consoles die sometimes. 2.1.125 is much better but it has got the X logout crash problem. A recent 2.1 kernel would be nice since it supports SMP. Any chance of going to something newer than 2.1.125? I'll package a newer one if you tell me which one is best. We should wait for a fix which cures Jules X problems. Greetings, Christian -- Christian Meder, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] What's the railroad to me ? I never go to see Where it ends. It fills a few hollows, And makes banks for the swallows, It sets the sand a-blowing, And the blackberries a-growing. (Henry David Thoreau)
Re: The time has come (part II) ...
--On Sat, Nov 28, 1998 1:25 pm -0500 Steve Dunham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jules Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --On Wed, Nov 25, 1998 10:08 pm +0100 Eric Delaunay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: About kernel, I will release the next bootdisks with 2.0.35. Is it enough reliable for *all* sparc workstations, or should I switch to 2.1 ? I'd like to see 2.1, but I can always make my own... Since the last breaks dpkg-shlibdeps, I'm using 2.1 ATM. But it does have some rather serious X problems on cgsixes (?) Do you have a flashing cursor in X with the cgsix? (I do, with 2.1.127, and I'm trying to determine if it's due to the fact that the cgsix is the second head on my system.) Nope. My cgsix problem is that I get a watchdog reset when I quit X. Which is kinda unpleasant :-) I'll send trace info to [EMAIL PROTECTED] when I get a chance - I'm rushed off my proverbials at the moment. Jules /+---+-\ | Jelibean aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 6 Evelyn Rd| | Jules aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Richmond, Surrey | | Julian Bean | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| TW9 2TF *UK* | ++---+-+ | Debian GNU/Linux - Microsoft *does* have a year 2000 problem - | | and we're it! (paraphrased from IRC) | \--/
Re: The time has come (part II) ...
Jules Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --On Wed, Nov 25, 1998 10:08 pm +0100 Eric Delaunay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: About kernel, I will release the next bootdisks with 2.0.35. Is it enough reliable for *all* sparc workstations, or should I switch to 2.1 ? I'd like to see 2.1, but I can always make my own... Since the last breaks dpkg-shlibdeps, I'm using 2.1 ATM. But it does have some rather serious X problems on cgsixes (?) Do you have a flashing cursor in X with the cgsix? (I do, with 2.1.127, and I'm trying to determine if it's due to the fact that the cgsix is the second head on my system.) Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The time has come (part II) ...
On Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 06:08:20PM +0100, Christian Meder wrote: which kernel will we use as standard kernel ? Although I haven't tried X with it, the 2.1.129 kernel on this debian sparc system of mine has been up for a almost a week now with no porblems. There are some problems that I have seen on linux-kernel@ with 129, but all seem to have been fixed in the latest 2.1.130pre3. Maybe we need to look beyond 125 for the sparc release? Also, if no one else is working on it, I would really like to see the tftpboot image capable of using nfs to install the kernel image and modules instead of asking for a disk (or does it work and just wasn't obvious in the install?). -- --- - - --- - - - --- Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux UnixGroup Admin - Jordan Systems Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- - - - --- --- -- The Choice of the GNU Generation
Re: The time has come (part II) ...
--On Wed, Nov 25, 1998 12:41 pm -0500 Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 06:08:20PM +0100, Christian Meder wrote: which kernel will we use as standard kernel ? Although I haven't tried X with it, the 2.1.129 kernel on this debian sparc system of mine has been up for a almost a week now with no porblems. There are some problems that I have seen on linux-kernel@ with 129, but all seem to have been fixed in the latest 2.1.130pre3. Maybe we need to look beyond 125 for the sparc release? Also, if no one else is working on it, I would really like to see the tftpboot image capable of using nfs to install the kernel image and modules instead of asking for a disk (or does it work and just wasn't obvious in the install?). It does work, and it isn't obvious, no. You just mount the NFS drive, and when it asks you where base_*tgz is, you tell it... Jules /+---+-\ | Jelibean aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 6 Evelyn Rd| | Jules aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Richmond, Surrey | | Julian Bean | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| TW9 2TF *UK* | ++---+-+ | Debian GNU/Linux - Microsoft *does* have a year 2000 problem - | | and we're it! (paraphrased from IRC) | \--/
Re: The time has come (part II) ...
On Wed, 25 Nov 1998, Jules Bean wrote: tftpboot image capable of using nfs to install the kernel image and modules instead of asking for a disk (or does it work and just wasn't obvious in the install?). It does work, and it isn't obvious, no. You just mount the NFS drive, and when it asks you where base_*tgz is, you tell it... It's not quite that obvious. You have to do the steps out of order and setup the network before you mount anything. Dave Broudy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The time has come (part II) ...
On Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 06:08:12PM +, Jules Bean wrote: You just mount the NFS drive, and when it asks you where base_*tgz is, you tell it... Yeah, I was able to do that, but what about when it asks for resc1440.bin and drv1440.bin? -- --- - - --- - - - --- Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux UnixGroup Admin - Jordan Systems Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- - - - --- --- -- The Choice of the GNU Generation
Re: The time has come (part II) ...
On Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 06:55:04PM +, Jules Bean wrote: As long as you've got them visible on a mounted file system, it can find them and use them. Ok, makes it easier in the sense that it is actually there :) I'm wondering if it's possible however to include these things into the tftpboot image itself, and have it know about it without asking? Obviously the image already has the kernel somewhere around in it, and modules would not take a huge amount of space considering there aren't alot of them for sparc compared to i386. -- --- - - --- - - - --- Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux UnixGroup Admin - Jordan Systems Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- - - - --- --- -- The Choice of the GNU Generation
Re: The time has come (part II) ...
According to Ben Collins: On Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 06:08:12PM +, Jules Bean wrote: You just mount the NFS drive, and when it asks you where base_*tgz is, you tell it... The bigger Problem is IMHO that you can't give dinstall an nfs-mounted directory as a target. All those diskless SCLs and ELCs cause a lot of tweaking this way. I think that is what the original poster meant Alexander -- ,,, (o o) +-oOO--(_)--OOo--/TT | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | ... because you are always as | | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| dead as you think you are!| | www.uni-karlsruhe.de/~Alexander.Schulz| (D. Adams : mostly harmless) | +---+---+
Re: The time has come (part II) ...
Christian Meder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: just to bring you the latest news from the Sparc32 port ;-) Brian agreed that we will get a freeze on Sparc and therefore we will release sid as Debian 2.1 on sparc. Up to now I took care only to upload packages with sources taken from the frozen dist. So we are pretty much in line with i386. There are three issues left which are critical for our (sparc) release: which kernel will we use as standard kernel ? 2.0.35 is pretty stable for me but it's not completely stable because the virtual consoles die sometimes. 2.1.125 is much better but it has got the X logout crash problem. 2.0.35 doesn't boot on my Sparc 20. (It does boot on another sparc 20 in the office.) It dies before the screen turns black, just after detecting the CPUs, so I suspect the problem is related to the multiple video cards in my machine. we need fresh bootfloppies. Eric will you work on the bootfloppies ? Can we get APT in the new base? (I usually customize the base Lots of testing. Everybody who wants to see a Debian 2.1 sparc release should join in now. Not everything's in place yet but I hope that most of the (doable) packages are done by the weekend. Has anyone tried this stuff on an Ultra? Does it need any dynamic loader patches or will an Ultra work out of the box with a special kernel. If the latter is true, then we should provide either a seperate tftpboot image and floppy set for the Ultra, or a combined TILO image and seperate floppy set. Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The time has come (part II) ...
Christian Meder wrote: Hi, just to bring you the latest news from the Sparc32 port ;-) Brian agreed that we will get a freeze on Sparc and therefore we will release sid as Debian 2.1 on sparc. Up to now I took care only to upload packages with sources taken from the frozen dist. So we are pretty much in line with i386. Very good news :-)) There are three issues left which are critical for our (sparc) release: which kernel will we use as standard kernel ? 2.0.35 is pretty stable for me but it's not completely stable because the virtual consoles die sometimes. 2.1.125 is much better but it has got the X logout crash problem. we need fresh bootfloppies. Eric will you work on the bootfloppies ? Yes, yes, I'm working on :-)) I recompiled everything and I'm starting to test a fresh install to see how it works (or not)... About kernel, I will release the next bootdisks with 2.0.35. Is it enough reliable for *all* sparc workstations, or should I switch to 2.1 ? Regards. PS: I hope I will be ready to upload bootdisks next monday evening. -- Eric Delaunay | La guerre justifie l'existence des militaires. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | En les supprimant. Henri Jeanson (1900-1970)
Re: The time has come (part II) ...
On Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 10:08:11PM +0100, Eric Delaunay wrote: About kernel, I will release the next bootdisks with 2.0.35. Is it enough reliable for *all* sparc workstations, or should I switch to 2.1 ? The 2.0.x kernels suffer performance wise on the sun4c's i have used them on. For example it took about an hour for them to run mke2fs on my 2 gig drive, while the 2.1 kernels went at it in about 15 minutes (or less). 2.0.35 works well on sun4m's tho. -- --- - - --- - - - --- Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux UnixGroup Admin - Jordan Systems Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- - - - --- --- -- The Choice of the GNU Generation
Re: The time has come (part II) ...
--On Wed, Nov 25, 1998 4:51 pm -0500 Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 10:08:11PM +0100, Eric Delaunay wrote: About kernel, I will release the next bootdisks with 2.0.35. Is it enough reliable for *all* sparc workstations, or should I switch to 2.1 ? The 2.0.x kernels suffer performance wise on the sun4c's i have used them on. For example it took about an hour for them to run mke2fs on my 2 gig drive, while the 2.1 kernels went at it in about 15 minutes (or less). 2.0.35 works well on sun4m's tho. Oh. So *that's* the famous sun4c slowdown. I noticed that too, when I installed my machine. I just assumed that my disks were slow :-) I've never really noticed the slowdown when the machine's in use, but I use it very lightly. Jules P.S. I keep trimming this thread to -sparc - it's not really relevant to -devel. /+---+-\ | Jelibean aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 6 Evelyn Rd| | Jules aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Richmond, Surrey | | Julian Bean | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| TW9 2TF *UK* | ++---+-+ | Debian GNU/Linux - Microsoft *does* have a year 2000 problem - | | and we're it! (paraphrased from IRC) | \--/
Re: The time has come (part II) ...
On Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 10:12:30PM +, Jules Bean wrote: Oh. So *that's* the famous sun4c slowdown. I noticed that too, when I installed my machine. I just assumed that my disks were slow :-) I've never really noticed the slowdown when the machine's in use, but I use it very lightly. Doing disk intensive things is when i noticed it most (large files, fsck, mke2fs, etc), but I also noticed it slightly after the memory had been filled up with cache like after updatedb runs or compiling large programs. 2.1.x has made my system far more useful :) -- --- - - --- - - - --- Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux UnixGroup Admin - Jordan Systems Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- - - - --- --- -- The Choice of the GNU Generation
