Re: apt-get files problems
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:19:53 -0700, Monique Y. Herman wrote: > On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 at 22:29 GMT, Paul Morgan penned: >> >> A bit of trivia: For any given manufacturer of both IDE and SCSI >> disks, the disks themselves are often (usually) mechanically >> identical, whether IDE or SCSI. It's just the controllers which are >> different. >> > > I ran this past my fiancé, Eric Mudama, who works in the hard drive > business, and here's what he had to say. Hope it helps. > > [quote] > Okay, here are the facts: > > 1. mechanically, current generation IDE and SCSI drives are *not* > identical, not even close. The SCSI HDA, required to spin at 10k, > 15k, or 22k RPM is a *much* different beast. They may have been > identical back 4-5 years ago when Seagate was shipping 7200 RPM IDE > and SCSI drives, but those drives dont exist anymore. The WD Raptor > (10k SATA) has no equivalent SCSI product, so there is still no > common-mechanics IDE/SCSI drive in production today (that I am aware > of). Thanks, Monique, I'm five years behind the times as usual :) Interesting post, please thank your fiancé for his time -- paul It's working as coded. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get files problems
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 11:55:04AM -0700, Monique Y. Herman wrote: > On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 at 19:49 GMT, A.L.Meyers penned: > > "Monique Y. Herman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> /var/lib/dpkg/info/ has a .list file for every package > >> on your system. I'm guessing that's what apt is looking for. > > > > Bingo, Monique. And precisely that directory entry apparently was on > > one of the bad blocks on that partition (IDE drive about 4 years old - > > now I know why the old wizzards always prefer SCSI). And my backups > > with the undamaged data are too old compared to the state of packages > > before the disk read errors began to multiply. In addition to running > > fsck on the file system, I have shifted /var to the partition which > > used to be /opt and vice-versa, as the latter partition has (not yet) > > exhibited read errors and /opt under Debian can live on smaller space. > > After the year-end financial ebb, maybe I shall plunk down enough cash > > to replace the IDE drive with magneto-optical disks. One ouch is > > enough. > > > > Anyway, lamentation leads nowhere. How can I get apt to regenerate > > those *.list files, please? > > > > This, I don't know =/ I also don't know if the .list files are > generated or just sucked out of the .deb packages ... > > Anyone? > > -- > monique Hi Folks, from my understanding, after you download a .deb, it is unpacked. the unpacking produces the files is /var/lib/dpkg/info. and these files are called before and after the package is installed. think pre-remove,pre-install, post-remove,post-install. So, re-installing via apt-get or dpkg will produce them as well as apt-get a new version. But there may be some other ways. YMMV -Kev signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: apt-get files problems
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 at 22:29 GMT, Paul Morgan penned: > > A bit of trivia: For any given manufacturer of both IDE and SCSI > disks, the disks themselves are often (usually) mechanically > identical, whether IDE or SCSI. It's just the controllers which are > different. > I ran this past my fiancé, Eric Mudama, who works in the hard drive business, and here's what he had to say. Hope it helps. [quote] Okay, here are the facts: 1. mechanically, current generation IDE and SCSI drives are *not* identical, not even close. The SCSI HDA, required to spin at 10k, 15k, or 22k RPM is a *much* different beast. They may have been identical back 4-5 years ago when Seagate was shipping 7200 RPM IDE and SCSI drives, but those drives dont exist anymore. The WD Raptor (10k SATA) has no equivalent SCSI product, so there is still no common-mechanics IDE/SCSI drive in production today (that I am aware of). 2. electrically, the SCSI disks are different too. They have a greater profit margin where performance is concern #1, so the read channel bandwidth is about 20% higher than what exists in IDE today. This is why you can read the top SCSI drives at 79MB/sec and the top IDE drives at 65MB/sec. (There are other differences too, but channel bandwidth is the #1 electrical difference.) As far as reliability I believe they're nearly identical from what I understand. However, we have *much* more test time on IDE drives vs SCSI drives (since we build and sell 100x as many IDE drives as SCSI drives), so I think our reliability predictions on IDE are much more accurate in the long run. Not sure if this matters. There is no proof that SCSI disks last longer. We have IDE drives that last over 10 or 15 years too. SCSI can give a simultaneous command to every drive on the bus, to have all 7 (or 15) drives seeking at the same time. IDE is not capable of this without queueing. However, the processor load difference is minimal. It does, however, mean that with 2 typical IDE drives on the same cable, that reads on both drives are serialized, whereas in SCSI they may not be. However, this also requires driver support to actually issue commands to both at the same time, and I'm not sure which motherboards will actually do this. I've never tried to time-correlate bus analyzer traces on multiple cables at the same time. If you put the IDE drives on different cables (or use SATA, or use command queueing), this is basically moot (but still comes down to the driver.) As far as processor bandwidth used, IDE drives using DMA are really low on processor utilization, so the old concern about "IDE wastes the processor" is currently not accurate, though it used to be. SCSI is even lower overhead, but not by that much... certainly not something most people would notice on most machines, at least they won't notice more than the huge price difference... IDE is 1/2 to 1/5 the cost per gigabyte, and nearly the same performance for most users who are doing anything except full-pack random-read workloads. (database server, news server, etc) In those cases, the more-expensive magnets and shorter actuator arm in SCSI HDAs (Head/Disk Assembly... basically everything but the electronics you see on the surface of the drive) give better random seek performance, which leads to better random read performance. Random write performance in IDE with write-cache enabled is equal to SCSI performance since rotational latency doesn't matter for writes due to rotational latency reordering of the write cache. [/quote] -- monique -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get files problems
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 at 19:49 GMT, A.L.Meyers penned: > "Monique Y. Herman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> /var/lib/dpkg/info/ has a .list file for every package >> on your system. I'm guessing that's what apt is looking for. > > Bingo, Monique. And precisely that directory entry apparently was on > one of the bad blocks on that partition (IDE drive about 4 years old - > now I know why the old wizzards always prefer SCSI). And my backups > with the undamaged data are too old compared to the state of packages > before the disk read errors began to multiply. In addition to running > fsck on the file system, I have shifted /var to the partition which > used to be /opt and vice-versa, as the latter partition has (not yet) > exhibited read errors and /opt under Debian can live on smaller space. > After the year-end financial ebb, maybe I shall plunk down enough cash > to replace the IDE drive with magneto-optical disks. One ouch is > enough. > > Anyway, lamentation leads nowhere. How can I get apt to regenerate > those *.list files, please? > This, I don't know =/ I also don't know if the .list files are generated or just sucked out of the .deb packages ... Anyone? -- monique -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get files problems
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 20:49:17 +0100, A.L.Meyers wrote: > > Bingo, Monique. And precisely that directory entry apparently was on > one of the bad blocks on that partition (IDE drive about 4 years old - > now I know why the old wizzards always prefer SCSI). And my backups A bit of trivia: For any given manufacturer of both IDE and SCSI disks, the disks themselves are often (usually) mechanically identical, whether IDE or SCSI. It's just the controllers which are different. -- paul It's working as coded. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get files problems
"Monique Y. Herman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 at 14:47 GMT, A.L.Meyers penned: > [large snip] > > > > Thanks, Jerome, that did help. apt-get goes a great step further but, > > alas, then complains about missing file lists for each of the > > installed packages. Probably something else got corrupted. Where > > should those file lists per package be located, please? Is there a > > way to get apt to reconfigure itself in such a situation? > > /var/lib/dpkg/info/ has a .list file for every package on > your system. I'm guessing that's what apt is looking for. Bingo, Monique. And precisely that directory entry apparently was on one of the bad blocks on that partition (IDE drive about 4 years old - now I know why the old wizzards always prefer SCSI). And my backups with the undamaged data are too old compared to the state of packages before the disk read errors began to multiply. In addition to running fsck on the file system, I have shifted /var to the partition which used to be /opt and vice-versa, as the latter partition has (not yet) exhibited read errors and /opt under Debian can live on smaller space. After the year-end financial ebb, maybe I shall plunk down enough cash to replace the IDE drive with magneto-optical disks. One ouch is enough. Anyway, lamentation leads nowhere. How can I get apt to regenerate those *.list files, please? Lux -- If you receive this by error, please delete it and inform the sender. Key fingerprint: 8994 CFDD 9C60 C978 A488 689F 5DCC EFC4 4D36 580D To Big Brother Echelon from "spook": radar ihwan colonel Noriega Peking Ortega bomb Treasury Somalia smuggle -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get files problems
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 at 14:47 GMT, A.L.Meyers penned: [large snip] > > Thanks, Jerome, that did help. apt-get goes a great step further but, > alas, then complains about missing file lists for each of the > installed packages. Probably something else got corrupted. Where > should those file lists per package be located, please? Is there a > way to get apt to reconfigure itself in such a situation? > /var/lib/dpkg/info/ has a .list file for every package on your system. I'm guessing that's what apt is looking for. -- monique -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get files problems
"Jerome R. Acks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 09:43:48PM +0100, A.L.Meyers wrote: > > Hi! Due to physical disk read errors had to copy /var/spool/apt and > > /var/lib/apt files to another disk and, after bad block checking, back. > > Apparently something went wrong in the process, perhaps due to file > > corruption. > > > > Anyway, now consistently getting the following error messages when doing > > apt-get dist-upgrade: > > > > E: Cannot get debconf version. Is debconf installed? > > (Reading database ... 0 files and directories currently installed.) >^---^ > > The installation status of all files is kept in /var/lib/dpkg/status. > Backups of this file are found in /var/backups. Try restoring the > status file from one of the backups. > > > Unpacking libdb1-compat (from .../libdb1-compat_2.1.3-7_i386.deb) ... > > dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/libdb1-compat_2.1.3-7_i386.deb > > (--unpack): > > unable to create updated files list file for package libdb1-compat: No such file > > or directory > > Unpacking libc6 (from .../libc6_2.3.2.ds1-10_i386.deb) ... > > dpkg not recorded as installed, cannot check for epoch support ! > > dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6_2.3.2.ds1-10_i386.deb > > (--unpack): > > subprocess pre-installation script returned error exit status 1 > > Errors were encountered while processing: > > /var/cache/apt/archives/libdb1-compat_2.1.3-7_i386.deb > > /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6_2.3.2.ds1-10_i386.deb > > E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) > > > > Suggestions much appreciated. Thanks, Jerome, that did help. apt-get goes a great step further but, alas, then complains about missing file lists for each of the installed packages. Probably something else got corrupted. Where should those file lists per package be located, please? Is there a way to get apt to reconfigure itself in such a situation? Regards, Lux -- If you receive this by error, please delete it and inform the sender. Key fingerprint: 8994 CFDD 9C60 C978 A488 689F 5DCC EFC4 4D36 580D To Big Brother Echelon from "spook": supercomputer spy FSF DES class struggle counter-intelligence Albanian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get files problems
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 09:43:48PM +0100, A.L.Meyers wrote: > Hi! Due to physical disk read errors had to copy /var/spool/apt and > /var/lib/apt files to another disk and, after bad block checking, back. > Apparently something went wrong in the process, perhaps due to file > corruption. > > Anyway, now consistently getting the following error messages when doing > apt-get dist-upgrade: > > E: Cannot get debconf version. Is debconf installed? > (Reading database ... 0 files and directories currently installed.) ^---^ The installation status of all files is kept in /var/lib/dpkg/status. Backups of this file are found in /var/backups. Try restoring the status file from one of the backups. > Unpacking libdb1-compat (from .../libdb1-compat_2.1.3-7_i386.deb) ... > dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/libdb1-compat_2.1.3-7_i386.deb > (--unpack): > unable to create updated files list file for package libdb1-compat: No such file or > directory > Unpacking libc6 (from .../libc6_2.3.2.ds1-10_i386.deb) ... > dpkg not recorded as installed, cannot check for epoch support ! > dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6_2.3.2.ds1-10_i386.deb > (--unpack): > subprocess pre-installation script returned error exit status 1 > Errors were encountered while processing: > /var/cache/apt/archives/libdb1-compat_2.1.3-7_i386.deb > /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6_2.3.2.ds1-10_i386.deb > E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) > > Suggestions much appreciated. > > Greetings, > > Lux -- Jerome pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
