Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64
Neil Bothwick writes: On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:20:39 +0100, Alex Schuster wrote: Next thing I would never have thought of: the root file system was too small. I made it 500 MB bis, as /usr, /var, /opt, /tmp and /home are on LVM. A little small because of /root/.ccache, but I usually symlink that to somewhere else. You could set $CCACHE_DIR, which seems less kludgy to me. Right. But why is /lib/modules larger than 300 MB? Because you have built your kernel with CONFIG_KITCHENSINK=m? % du -h /lib/modules/$(uname -r) 9.9M/lib/modules/2.6.24-tuxonice-r3 Hmmm, it's 22MB on my desktop, time to start pruning .config. Well, I think I did that. I copied the kubuntu config, but went through most options with menuconfig and deactivated a lot. I kept bluetooth, USB and DVB stuff, and some more, though, because I do not know yet which devices might be needed later. So, the original kubuntu .config has even much more stuff in it. Squashfs compression must be very good, or the whole CD would be filled with modules only. % df -h / FilesystemTypeSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/sda5 reiserfs385M 189M 196M 50% / That includes /boot with two kernels. Looks like what I had expected. But that's okay, I created another, bigger root partition. I just think that the documentation could mention this. Remember, if you are going to get your .config fram a CD like knoppix, your /lib directory will neeed at about 500 M, so be sure aour root partition is big enough or something like that would have helped. Flash would be nice now. For some people it does work fine, but for others this still is not the case it seems. Using firefox-bin or wine might be workarounds, but I would not like that much - I like to use konqueror. The video driver problem seems to be sort of solved. Looks like a permission problem, the X user has direct rendering. I guess a Section DRI with Mode 0666 will solve that. Still, I wonder how to get a new xorg.conf. X -configure also fails on other machines with a similar error. Yet another probem we just saw is display of videos. Xine works fine, but with mplayer or vlc it seems like the frames are not all in correct order, the output skips back a little about once a second. Wonko -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:20:16 +0100, Alex Schuster wrote: Flash would be nice now. For some people it does work fine, but for others this still is not the case it seems. Using firefox-bin or wine might be workarounds, but I would not like that much - I like to use konqueror. Most flash works with Konqueror here, using nspluginwraper, even YouTube works fine nowadays. Occasionally one of my CPUs goes to 100% and top shows nspluginwrapper doing this, killing the process fixes it. -- Neil Bothwick Memory Map - A sheet of paper showing location of computer store. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64
On Wednesday 19 March 2008, 16:54, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:20:16 +0100, Alex Schuster wrote: Flash would be nice now. For some people it does work fine, but for others this still is not the case it seems. Using firefox-bin or wine might be workarounds, but I would not like that much - I like to use konqueror. Most flash works with Konqueror here, using nspluginwraper, even YouTube works fine nowadays. Occasionally one of my CPUs goes to 100% and top shows nspluginwrapper doing this, killing the process fixes it. To add to the discussion, on amd64 I use swfdec-mozilla without major problems. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64
Anthony E. Caudel wrote: I have an AMD 64x2 that I have been using only in x86 mode since I got it. I have been thinking of going to x86_64 mode but I'm wondering if it's worth the trouble with multilib, chroot'ing, firefox-bin and other compromises (admittedly some minor). I realize I should see some speed increase but probably only in certain areas such as compiling. So, for those users who have used both, is it worth it overall? Here are my experiences with amd64, I just helped a friend installing it. After reading here we thought it might not be worth the potential trouble, but this many registers not being used just feels a little bad. And she does mpeg encodings frequently, which is one thing that should work faster. First peoblem was the minimal Gentoo boot CD. It hang, I think when mounting the root FS from the squashfs image on CD. I thought I had a faulty CD-RW medium, but a second ttempt with a new CD-ROM gave the same result. But there was a kubunto install CD with 64 bit support. We had trouble with grub. Tab completion did not work, in and outside the chroot. I did not dare to install, because there were other disks I did not want to endanger. I found and emerged grub-static then, which automatically installed into /boot, but something went wrong and grub only showed a GRUB message. I installed gurb manually (root (hd0,0), setup (hd0)), and all was fine then. BTW, the manual says that grub-static is only needed when you are on the multilib profile. I think I am (/etc/make.profile is $PORTDIR/profiles/default-linux/amd64/2007.0(desktop), but emerge --info does not show the multilib use flag, which I have defined in make.conf. Huh? But it seems that if I were not on multilib, grub would have been masked and refused to build. Next thing I would never have thought of: the root file system was too small. I made it 500 MB bis, as /usr, /var, /opt, /tmp and /home are on LVM. A little small because of /root/.ccache, but I usually symlink that to somewhere else. But why is /lib/modules larger than 300 MB? I would expect this to be around 30 MB, which is double the size of these directories on my other system, but even ten times more than that? Is something wrong here? The installation handbook does not mention this, and also suggest a small root partition. The examplee shows 132 MB used there, this looks okay to me. Flash does not work (yet). I emerged netscape-flash and and nspluginwrapper, but firefox and konqueror do not have flash working. Did not investigate this further yet. OpenGL works with software rendering only. The card is a Radeon X1550 / RV505 and should be supported by the ati-drivers. Module fglrx loads, but when starting X, I get this error: (EE) AIGLX error: dlsym for __driCreateNewScreen_20050727 failed (/usr/lib64/dri/fglrx_dri.so: undefined symbol: __driCreateNewScreen_20050727) (EE) AIGLX: reverting to software rendering I did not find much helpfun information on this yet. One hint is to disable Option AIGLX in ServerFlags section of xorg.conf. This gets rid of the mesage, and I have dirent rendering enabled in the X log file, but glrxinfo shows this: libGL error: failed to open DRM: Operation not permitted libGL error: reverting to (slow) indirect rendering display: :0.0 screen: 0 OpenGL vendor string: Mesa project: www.mesa3d.org OpenGL renderer string: Mesa GLX Indirect OpenGL version string: 1.4 (1.5 Mesa 6.5.2) Any ideas on that? We do not want the radeon driver because things like multiple displays and tv-out are not working well, I read. I tried anyway, I could modprobe radeon, but cannnot start X because a missing device section for the 2nd BusID. Maybe I should specify this in xorg.conf (I tried a little but to no avail), or get a fresh config instead of one from another boot CD. But X -configure does not work. X Window System Version 1.3.0 Release Date: 19 April 2007 X Protocol Version 11, Revision 0, Release 1.3 Build Operating System: UNKNOWN Current Operating System: Linux tanja 2.6.23-gentoo-r9 #9 SMP PREEMPT Mon Mar 17 15:14:45 CET 2008 x86_64 Build Date: 16 March 2008 Before reporting problems, check http://wiki.x.org to make sure that you have the latest version. Module Loader present Markers: (--) probed, (**) from config file, (==) default setting, (++) from command line, (!!) notice, (II) informational, (WW) warning, (EE) error, (NI) not implemented, (??) unknown. (==) Log file: /var/log/Xorg.0.log, Time: Tue Mar 18 22:02:27 2008 List of video drivers: radeonhd ati r128 atimisc fglrx radeon vesa Backtrace: 0: X(xf86SigHandler+0x6d) [0x47cd4d] 1: /lib/libc.so.6 [0x2b7db9a29430] 2: /lib/libc.so.6(memcpy+0x46) [0x2b7db9a6e916] 3: /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/drivers//fglrx_drv.so(atiddxProbeMain+0xf1) [0x2b7dba934731] 4: X(DoConfigure+0x1f5) [0x47a955] 5: X(InitOutput+0x6a5) [0x468025] 6: X(main+0x275)
Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64
Alex Schuster wrote: Anthony E. Caudel wrote: I have an AMD 64x2 that I have been using only in x86 mode since I got it. I have been thinking of going to x86_64 mode but I'm wondering if it's worth the trouble with multilib, chroot'ing, firefox-bin and other compromises (admittedly some minor). I realize I should see some speed increase but probably only in certain areas such as compiling. So, for those users who have used both, is it worth it overall? Next thing I would never have thought of: the root file system was too small. I made it 500 MB bis, as /usr, /var, /opt, /tmp and /home are on LVM. A little small because of /root/.ccache, but I usually symlink that to somewhere else. But why is /lib/modules larger than 300 MB? I would expect this to be around 30 MB, which is double the size of these directories on my other system, but even ten times more than that? Is something wrong here? The installation handbook does not mention this, and also suggest a small root partition. The examplee shows 132 MB used there, this looks okay to me. Here's my FS setup from df: FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/hdb1 9.4G 7.2G 1.8G 81% / /dev/hdb2 471M 27M 420M 7% /boot /dev/hda2 31G 3.7G 25G 13% /usr/portage /dev/mapper/vg_tmp4.0G 154M 3.6G 5% /tmp /dev/mapper/vg_var 11G 518M 9.8G 5% /var /dev/mapper/vg_usr9.9G 151M 9.2G 2% /usr/local /dev/mapper/vg_opt9.9G 505M 8.9G 6% /opt /dev/mapper/vg_home30G 26G 2.1G 93% /home I have a few other partitions for things too, but the above covers the normal and essential. Additionally I have a couple gigs of swap space. YMMV I also checked my lib size - which is about 53MB for /lib64, and 4.3MB for /lib32. /usr (including sub-mounts, e.g. local and portage) comes out to 11GB. /opt is 335 MB, and /var is 309 MB. So I don't know what went wrong for you. Flash does not work (yet). I emerged netscape-flash and and nspluginwrapper, but firefox and konqueror do not have flash working. Did not investigate this further yet. I've only really been able to get Flash working with the 32-bit Firefox binary. It will randomly work in the 64-bit Firefox build for some reason, but nothing consistent - and when it does, only one web page can use it at a time - not multi-tabs each with their own flash. Perhaps that's just a result of the nswrapper-plugin to make the 32-bit and 64-bit work together...not sure. Any how...overall, it runs really well. I can't offer any advice on the video issues. Ben -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:20:39 +0100, Alex Schuster wrote: Next thing I would never have thought of: the root file system was too small. I made it 500 MB bis, as /usr, /var, /opt, /tmp and /home are on LVM. A little small because of /root/.ccache, but I usually symlink that to somewhere else. You could set $CCACHE_DIR, which seems less kludgy to me. But why is /lib/modules larger than 300 MB? Because you have built your kernel with CONFIG_KITCHENSINK=m? % du -h /lib/modules/$(uname -r) 9.9M/lib/modules/2.6.24-tuxonice-r3 Hmmm, it's 22MB on my desktop, time to start pruning .config. % df -h / FilesystemTypeSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/sda5 reiserfs385M 189M 196M 50% / That includes /boot with two kernels. -- Neil Bothwick A consultant is a person who borrows your watch, tells you what time it is, pockets the watch, and sends you a bill for it. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64
Neil Bothwick wrote: On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:20:39 +0100, Alex Schuster wrote: Next thing I would never have thought of: the root file system was too small. I made it 500 MB bis, as /usr, /var, /opt, /tmp and /home are on LVM. A little small because of /root/.ccache, but I usually symlink that to somewhere else. You could set $CCACHE_DIR, which seems less kludgy to me. But why is /lib/modules larger than 300 MB? Because you have built your kernel with CONFIG_KITCHENSINK=m? % du -h /lib/modules/$(uname -r) 9.9M/lib/modules/2.6.24-tuxonice-r3 $ du -h /lib/modules/$(uname -r) 19M/lib/modules/2.6.23-gentoo-r6 Hmmm, it's 22MB on my desktop, time to start pruning .config. % df -h / FilesystemTypeSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/sda5 reiserfs385M 189M 196M 50% / FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/sda1 9.9G 8.1G 1.3G 87% / That includes everything except /home. That includes /boot with two kernels. I haven't run into any significant problems with x86_64. To use flash and shockwave I just use wine and the windows version of Firefox, it works perfectly for me. Everything else I've tried either works, or has a suitable alternative that I don't mind using, but this rarely happens. -Hal -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64
On Feb 6, 2008 2:22 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] [1] http://swfdec.freedesktop.org/ By the way, *right now* I'm using Firefox in 64 bits, because YouTube now works with swfdec. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Facultad de Ciencias, UNAM
Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64
On Feb 6, 2008 1:28 AM, Anthony E. Caudel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] So, for those users who have used both, is it worth it overall? I've been using amd64 two years now, and the only 32 bit applications that *I* use are firefox-bin and mplayer-bin. With swfdec[1] getting better and better, the former will be unnecessary soon (I hope); and I haven't used the later in a *long* time (almost *all* videos are even handled by Totem/GStreamer now, if you unmask and install all the gst-plugins). I don't know about the speed difference, but it's really not too much pain to use amd64. [1] http://swfdec.freedesktop.org/ -- Canek Peláez Valdés Facultad de Ciencias, UNAM
Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64
Anthony E. Caudel schreef: I have an AMD 64x2 that I have been using only in x86 mode since I got it. I have been thinking of going to x86_64 mode but I'm wondering if it's worth the trouble with multilib, chroot'ing, firefox-bin and other compromises (admittedly some minor). I realize I should see some speed increase but probably only in certain areas such as compiling. So, for those users who have used both, is it worth it overall? I've used both and don't notice any difference for the stuff I'm using my computer for. Only 32bit application I'm using is firefox. I'm not sure if compiling is faster because I let emerge run in the background while watching a movie. Overall it works fine for me but I don't see much difference comparing my install to a 32bit install. -- Juul Spies -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64
On Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2008, Anthony E. Caudel wrote: I have an AMD 64x2 that I have been using only in x86 mode since I got it. I have been thinking of going to x86_64 mode but I'm wondering if it's worth the trouble with multilib which trouble? , chroot'ing, never needed. firefox-bin and other not needed anymore either. flash does work in the 'normal' firefox just fine. compromises (admittedly some minor). I realize I should see some speed increase but probably only in certain areas such as compiling. So, for those users who have used both, is it worth it overall? I have never used x86 on my amd64 systems - and I never had the need to chroot. Or do other silly stuff. Things just work. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64
On Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2008, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 2:22 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] [1] http://swfdec.freedesktop.org/ By the way, *right now* I'm using Firefox in 64 bits, because YouTube now works with swfdec. emm, 'normal' flash does work too. For a lng time. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64
On Feb 6, 2008 3:03 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2008, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 2:22 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] [1] http://swfdec.freedesktop.org/ By the way, *right now* I'm using Firefox in 64 bits, because YouTube now works with swfdec. emm, 'normal' flash does work too. For a lng time. You mean with nspluginwrapper? That didn't work for me (it stopped displaying flash without any reason). If you don't mean nspluginwrapper, I don't know what do you mean with 'normal'. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Facultad de Ciencias, UNAM
Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64
On Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2008, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 3:03 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2008, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 2:22 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] [1] http://swfdec.freedesktop.org/ By the way, *right now* I'm using Firefox in 64 bits, because YouTube now works with swfdec. emm, 'normal' flash does work too. For a lng time. You mean with nspluginwrapper? That didn't work for me (it stopped displaying flash without any reason). If you don't mean nspluginwrapper, I don't know what do you mean with 'normal'. well, nspluginwrapper is installed. I don't care for the details ;) Flash works for me with 'real flash' is all I need to know. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 06. Feb, Volker Armin Hemmann spammed my inbox with snip not needed anymore either. flash does work in the 'normal' firefox just fine. Come again? I would be very glad to finally ditch the binary firefox, but using nspluginwrapper didn't work. You can use netscape-flash with a 64-bit-compiled firefox? Please tell me how. compromises (admittedly some minor). I realize I should see some speed increase but probably only in certain areas such as compiling. Probably negeclable... So, for those users who have used both, is it worth it overall? Yeah, actually running 64 bits is pretty easy, you only need to be willing to unmask some packages sometimes and/or scrounge around bugzilla for working ebuilds (yes, ghdl, I'm looking at you!) - -- thenybble.de/blog/ -- four bits at a time -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHqX/PMmLQdC6jvocRAlmiAJ0RmKtN9o85/6KKAXGYdwru+LTbkQCeJ5YD qsrYtyHvJjZpCnv1knaXy78= =RvsZ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64
On Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2008, Jan Seeger wrote: On Wed, 06. Feb, Volker Armin Hemmann spammed my inbox with snip not needed anymore either. flash does work in the 'normal' firefox just fine. Come again? I would be very glad to finally ditch the binary firefox, but using nspluginwrapper didn't work. You can use netscape-flash with a 64-bit-compiled firefox? Please tell me how. emerge firefox: * www-client/mozilla-firefox Latest version available: 2.0.0.11 Latest version installed: 2.0.0.11 emerge nspluginwrapper: * net-www/nspluginwrapper Latest version available: 0.9.91.5-r1 Latest version installed: 0.9.91.5-r1 emerge flash: * net-www/netscape-flash Latest version available: 9.0.115.0 Latest version installed: 9.0.115.0 and it Just Works(tm) for me. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 06. Feb, Volker Armin Hemmann spammed my inbox with On Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2008, Jan Seeger wrote: On Wed, 06. Feb, Volker Armin Hemmann spammed my inbox with snip not needed anymore either. flash does work in the 'normal' firefox just fine. Yeah, it seems nspluginwrapper works better now. The time I tried it, it just crashed with a segfault and did nothing. But installing it again, it seems to work. Thanks for your suggestion^^ - -- thenybble.de/blog/ -- four bits at a time -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHqZQzMmLQdC6jvocRAircAJ0SziRLv0eyZdeXE+/NU+LQXwSd1ACgnSV5 YFJ1NcKJtXZrDYAJITxDkC8= =Qqit -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64
On Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2008, Jan Seeger wrote: Yeah, it seems nspluginwrapper works better now. The time I tried it, it just crashed with a segfault and did nothing. But installing it again, it seems to work. Thanks for your suggestion^^ -- thenybble.de/blog/ -- four bits at a time I only found out by accident. I always used firefox-bin. But someday something installed the 'real' firefox - and flash still worked. *shrug* -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64
Jan Seeger schreef: Yeah, it seems nspluginwrapper works better now. The time I tried it, it just crashed with a segfault and did nothing. But installing it again, it seems to work. Thanks for your suggestion^^ I have used it before but because of some strange crashes. After that I've never used it again. I'll give it try, if it's stable now there's no need to use firefox-bin anymore for me :) -- Juul Spies -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64
I have been thinking of going to x86_64 mode but I'm wondering if it's worth the trouble with multilib, chroot'ing, firefox-bin and other compromises (admittedly some minor). I realize I should see some speed increase but probably only in certain areas such as compiling. I just switched back to the amd64 profile and it has changed significantly since my last attempt. I only needed to use the multilib profile when I used the hardened profile. Hardened is still a little bit of a pain, but the standard profile and the desktop and server subprofiles work great.
