[SLUG] 64 bit.
Those of you who are running 64 bit versions of Ubuntu . . are there any pitfalls? Any problems with applications? Speed? -- Josh Smith Insist on yourself, never imitate... Every great man is Unique. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit.
I use 64 bit ubuntu 9.10 and haven't noticed anything wrong. The only thing that I suspect that doesn't work for me because of 64 bit, and I never got around to investigate, is the Yammer Adobe Air application. It installs and runs, but some parts don't work. From home on 32 bits it works well. In case this matters - a few weeks ago I asked the same question here in the forum, maybe you can dig the archives for the thread. --Amos On 8 February 2010 20:37, Josh Smith joshua.smi...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Those of you who are running 64 bit versions of Ubuntu . . are there any pitfalls? Any problems with applications? Speed? -- Josh Smith Insist on yourself, never imitate... Every great man is Unique. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit.
i have been running 64bit linux (admittedly debian not ubuntu) for 5 years now, never had any issues - although i have also run linux on sparc and powerpc... so what i consider issues and what others consider issues may vary :) x86_64 is as stable as any other port of linux, most companies are now deploying it as standard (in the large company i work for, you have to justify why you cant run on x86_64 with multi-arch. yes you can run 32bit programs perfectly in a 64bit install) running 32bit OS on 64bit hardware is a little bit like recording bluray audio on to an audio cassette ;) Dean Josh Smith wrote: Those of you who are running 64 bit versions of Ubuntu . . are there any pitfalls? Any problems with applications? Speed? -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit.
On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 20:56 +1100, Dean Hamstead wrote: you can run 32bit programs perfectly in a 64bit install) I suspect this needs to be tested application-by-application. I use VueScan commercial package (supports more scanners than xsane), and it does not like running directly, but if I run it in a 32-bit chroot it works correctly. -- Peter Miller pmil...@opensource.org.au -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit.
On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 20:37 +1100, Josh Smith wrote: Those of you who are running 64 bit versions of Ubuntu . . are there any pitfalls? Any problems with applications? Speed? Ubuntu 64 bit, about 2 years on the computer with upgrades. Speed is awesome. Might just because my hardware so much faster than the one that died a natural death. Skype. There were some issues with this but it simply installs now. Flash. Flash is still buggy. If you remove all flash support and install the beta flash player directly it works OK. Package manager keeps moving me back to the 32 wrapper version though. Wrapper version is 'mostly' OK. Ta Ken -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit.
Just (this week) moved from 32 (old machine that dies) to 64 Ubuntu. Not one single glitch due to 64bit. That may have been pure luck, but I've got quite a lot of stuff installed. I went from 32bit to 64bit on a laptop last year and the speed differential was very obvious when booting. It's hard to tell about the speed of apps when you are doing email though :) Josh Smith wrote: Those of you who are running 64 bit versions of Ubuntu . . are there any pitfalls? Any problems with applications? Speed? -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit.
Ken Foskey wrote: Flash. Flash is still buggy. This has nothing to do with 64 bit. Flash is just as buggy on 32 bit (I have and use both). Erik -- -- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/ -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit.
On 08/02/10 20:37, Josh Smith wrote: Those of you who are running 64 bit versions of Ubuntu . . are there any pitfalls? Any problems with applications? Speed? Pitfalls are usually encountered when running poorly written proprietary apps, but are always able to be worked around. Anything available in a source tarball, or packaged in a repository, will work without any issues though. For example, I ran XLink Kai http://www.teamxlink.co.uk/ the other day, which is basically and Xbox multiplayer tunneling app, allowing you to set up ad-hoc multiplayer games, bypassing Xbox Live. The app is a proprietary 32-bit Linux binary, which requires wxWindows installed. Because I run 64-bit Linux, when I install the required libwxbase2.6-0 package, kaiengine complained that it couldn't find the libraries. I did have the libraries, but the 64-bit versions. 32-bit applications require 32-bit libraries. So I downloaded the i386 libwxbase2.6-0 package, extracted it relative to kaiengine, and then launched it like this: $ LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/home/jeremy/Applications/kai/usr/lib ./kaiengine Which made the application work fine. On the other hand, some precompiled 32-bit applications (for example, Google Earth, Second Life, or Skype) work fine with no tweaks. My main point in showing you the above example is that while some things may not appear to work, there is always a way to get it working, even if you have to resort to grabbing the odd library (or if you're really screwed, you can run your app in a 32-bit chroot — I for one would be happy to help you set that up if you ever need it). Jeremy. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jeremy Visser wrote: On 08/02/10 20:37, Josh Smith wrote: Those of you who are running 64 bit versions of Ubuntu . . are there any pitfalls? Any problems with applications? Speed? - Snip Jeremy. Been using 64 bit for about 3 or 4 years now. The only issue I have is Firefox 3.5.7 is very slow to start (usually 90 seconds or more after I click on it before it starts). Heracles -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAktwPyQACgkQybPcBAs9CE8bYwCghqQMGgZ++MWNTnw4I1JjcvpK 8mIAoJPkzcTC501S1SLnEM7vK89gZ837 =dcUs -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit.
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 09:12:07PM +1100, Ken Foskey (kfos...@tpg.com.au) wrote: On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 20:37 +1100, Josh Smith wrote: Those of you who are running 64 bit versions of Ubuntu . . are there any pitfalls? Any problems with applications? Speed? Flash. Flash is still buggy. If you remove all flash support and install the beta flash player directly it works OK. Package manager keeps moving me back to the 32 wrapper version though. Wrapper version is 'mostly' OK. I have a few machines (centos,f12) all running 64 bit with wrapper and adobe repo (meaning it gets upgraded) and I have no problems at all. Jobst -- Goldwaithe's lemma of Murphy's third law: The line in which you are waiting is always the slowest. If you move, the line you move to stops. If you move back, both lines stop, and everyone is angry with you. | |0| | Jobst Schmalenbach, jo...@barrett.com.au, General Manager | | |0| Barrett Consulting Group P/L The Meditation Room P/L |0|0|0| +61 3 9532 7677, POBox 277, Caulfield South, 3162, Australia -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit.
I actually did something that was NOT suggested, I upgraded a few machines from Fedora 7 (32) to CentOS 5.4 (64). This is actually a downgrade, as a lot of packages and the kernel have LOWER version numbers. I did not want to go through the hassle to get all the users/config/packages/whatever across into a complete new install. RPM is clever enough to keep the higher version numbers as 32 bits, but as the new packages arrive they get exchanged with the newer 64 stuff. All of those are rock solid. Jobst On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 08:37:45PM +1100, Josh Smith (joshua.smi...@optusnet.com.au) wrote: Those of you who are running 64 bit versions of Ubuntu . . are there any pitfalls? Any problems with applications? Speed? -- Josh Smith Insist on yourself, never imitate... Every great man is Unique. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- Passwords are like underwear. You don't share them, you don't hang them on your monitor, or under your keyboard, you don't email them, or put them on a web site, and you must change them very often. | |0| | Jobst Schmalenbach, jo...@barrett.com.au, General Manager | | |0| Barrett Consulting Group P/L The Meditation Room P/L |0|0|0| +61 3 9532 7677, POBox 277, Caulfield South, 3162, Australia -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit.
On Tuesday 09 February 2010 06:37:38 slug-requ...@slug.org.au wrote: you can run 32bit programs perfectly in a 64bit install) I suspect this needs to be tested application-by-application. I use VueScan commercial package (supports more scanners than xsane), and it does not like running directly, but if I run it in a 32-bit chroot it works correctly. All that tells you is that you have not got your 32 bit environment correctly setup, missing libs whatever. 32 bit programs run exactly the same on 32bit and 64 bit hardware. No need to test application by application. try ldd application to check libs The saga around flash arises from trying to get 32 bit plugins working on a 64 bit program. I do lots with ltsp where 64 bit servers (memory handling) is much better than 32 bit memory paging. Nobody *ever* complains about stability on 64 bit or non working apps and the thin-client paradigsm is 'keyboard mouse and display' being the server console. ie all the users run 64 bit versions of the app on the server. ltsp can do many cute things, including LOCAL_APPS but that is not relevant here. James -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit.
On Tuesday 09 February 2010 06:37:38 slug-requ...@slug.org.au wrote: Those of you who are running 64 bit versions of Ubuntu . . are there any pitfalls? Any problems with applications? Speed? Ubuntu 64 bit, about 2 years on the computer with upgrades. Speed is awesome. Might just because my hardware so much faster than the one that died a natural death. Skype. There were some issues with this but it simply installs now. Flash. Flash is still buggy. If you remove all flash support and install the beta flash player directly it works OK. Package manager keeps moving me back to the 32 wrapper version though. Wrapper version is 'mostly' OK. Sorry to butt in with more ... speed (in general) is just about undetectably different 32 bit and 64 bit. 1 app using gobs of memory will do just as well on paged memory as on 64 bit (linear memory) Lots of apps or even a number using gobs of memory do much better on 64 than on 32 (paged) IMHO 64 bit flash is a great step but does not yet work. ndiswrapper is robust. I can't recall my last failure. I can recall that there have been failures, so it was on years timespan. James -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit.
On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 21:59 +1100, david wrote: Just (this week) moved from 32 (old machine that dies) to 64 Ubuntu. Not one single glitch due to 64bit. That may have been pure luck, but I've got quite a lot of stuff installed. Well, not to be underestimated is that people have worked hard over the last 5 years to make Linux and their applications run well on 64 bit. Sure, there were many glitches early on. That's porting for you. But lots of hackers and early adopters (as they then were) put the hard work in, and now, many years on things work great. That's our luck. Yeay open source, etc. [my recent experience along these lines was taking the 5 month old (amd64) LiveUSB stick with the Ubuntu Karmic release on it to a store and being able to boot Linux on a laptop I was considering - zero problems, brand spanking new hardware. I was impressed. Very impressed. We've all come a long way] Anyway, this comes up on the SLUG list fairly frequently. I think the consensus is clearly established that 32 vs 64 bit is well and truly past the point of being something we need to worry about. AfC Sydney signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit.
On Tuesday 09 February 2010 06:37:38 slug-requ...@slug.org.au wrote: Those of you who are running 64 bit versions of Ubuntu . . are there any pitfalls? Any problems with applications? Speed? Pitfalls are usually encountered when running poorly written proprietary apps, but are always able to be worked around. Anything available in a source tarball, or packaged in a repository, will work without any issues though. Jeremy, utter respect, but this is soapbox crap. If *you* installed your environment correctly then good, bad and indifferent software will run the same on a 32 or on a 64 OS. For example, I ran XLink Kai http://www.teamxlink.co.uk/ the other day, which is basically and Xbox multiplayer tunneling app, allowing you to set up ad-hoc multiplayer games, bypassing Xbox Live. The app is a proprietary 32-bit Linux binary, which requires wxWindows installed. Because I run 64-bit Linux, when I install the required libwxbase2.6-0 package, kaiengine complained that it couldn't find the libraries. I did have the libraries, but the 64-bit versions. 32-bit applications require 32-bit libraries. So I downloaded the i386 libwxbase2.6-0 package, extracted it relative to kaiengine, and then launched it like this: You say 'I did have the libraries' but that is wrong you did not have the libraries. $ LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/home/jeremy/Applications/kai/usr/lib ./kaiengine Which made the application work fine. On the other hand, some precompiled 32-bit applications (for example, Google Earth, Second Life, or Skype) work fine with no tweaks. My main point in showing you the above example is that while some things may not appear to work, there is always a way to get it working, even if you have to resort to grabbing the odd library (or if you're really screwed, you can run your app in a 32-bit chroot — I for one would be happy to help you set that up if you ever need it). I accept your opinion and your experiences smile but your woes would not have got me as I'm an old fart and to wit wiser. I'm not writing this to show that *you* ... anything ... but I've googled and found nearly 10 year old slug posts that I wrote. So my comments are for anyone who reads this for reference and guidance. James -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] deleting older files from /boot
my centos system just run out of space on /boot: # df Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol00 101793144 28730252 67892104 30% / /dev/cciss/c0d0p198747 92263 1385 99% /boot none 1168044 0 1168044 0% /dev/shm /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol02 1064312 34180976068 4% /tmp if I delete older versions of init-rd*, vmlinuz*, do I need to do anything else after deleteting the older files ? -- Voytek -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] deleting older files from /boot
I should also have said you'd need to remove this as well - linux-image-2.6.31-14-generic-pae That will remove the vmlinuz and initrd files and rebuild grub. On 9 February 2010 14:23, Mark Walkom markwal...@gmail.com wrote: You are better off using apt (or dpkg) to remove the packages, eg; m...@bender:~$ sudo apt-get remove linux-headers-2.6.31-14 Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done The following packages will be REMOVED: linux-headers-2.6.31-14 linux-headers-2.6.31-14-generic linux-headers-2.6.31-14-generic-pae 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 3 to remove and 0 not upgraded. After this operation, 90.8MB disk space will be freed. Do you want to continue [Y/n]? y (Reading database ... 240067 files and directories currently installed.) Removing linux-headers-2.6.31-14-generic-pae ... Removing linux-headers-2.6.31-14-generic ... dpkg: warning: while removing linux-headers-2.6.31-14-generic, directory '/lib/modules/2.6.31-14-generic' not empty so not removed. Removing linux-headers-2.6.31-14 ... On 9 February 2010 14:07, Voytek Eymont li...@sbt.net.au wrote: my centos system just run out of space on /boot: # df Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol00 101793144 28730252 67892104 30% / /dev/cciss/c0d0p198747 92263 1385 99% /boot none 1168044 0 1168044 0% /dev/shm /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol02 1064312 34180976068 4% /tmp if I delete older versions of init-rd*, vmlinuz*, do I need to do anything else after deleteting the older files ? -- Voytek -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] deleting older files from /boot
On Tue, February 9, 2010 2:23 pm, Mark Walkom wrote: You are better off using apt (or dpkg) to remove the packages, eg; m...@bender:~$ sudo apt-get remove linux-headers-2.6.31-14 Mark, thanks I don't think I have that on centos: # apt -bash: apt: command not found # dpkg -bash: dpkg: command not found -- Voytek -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] deleting older files from /boot
Ahh in that case get familiar with yum :) http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/rhel-centos-fedora-linux-yum-command-howto/ On 9 February 2010 14:30, Voytek Eymont li...@sbt.net.au wrote: On Tue, February 9, 2010 2:23 pm, Mark Walkom wrote: You are better off using apt (or dpkg) to remove the packages, eg; m...@bender:~$ sudo apt-get remove linux-headers-2.6.31-14 Mark, thanks I don't think I have that on centos: # apt -bash: apt: command not found # dpkg -bash: dpkg: command not found -- Voytek -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] deleting older files from /boot
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Mark Walkom markwal...@gmail.com wrote: You are better off using apt (or dpkg) to remove the packages, eg; Which part of CentOS did you miss? CentOS != Debian/Ubuntu, and doesn't use apt by default. It's an RPM based distribution. DaZZa -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] deleting older files from /boot
The whole thing apparently. On 9 February 2010 14:34, DaZZa dagi...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Mark Walkom markwal...@gmail.com wrote: You are better off using apt (or dpkg) to remove the packages, eg; Which part of CentOS did you miss? CentOS != Debian/Ubuntu, and doesn't use apt by default. It's an RPM based distribution. DaZZa -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit.
On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 08:28 +0800, james wrote: I use VueScan commercial package (supports more scanners than xsane), and it does not like running directly, but if I run it in a 32-bit chroot it works correctly. All that tells you is that you have not got your 32 bit environment correctly setup, missing libs whatever. That problem I could fix. $ VueScan/vuescan /usr/lib/gio/modules/libgiogconf.so: wrong ELF class: ELFCLASS64 Failed to load module: /usr/lib/gio/modules/libgiogconf.so /usr/lib/gio/modules/libgioremote-volume-monitor.so: wrong ELF class: ELFCLASS64 Failed to load module: /usr/lib/gio/modules/libgioremote-volume-monitor.so /usr/lib/gio/modules/libgvfsdbus.so: wrong ELF class: ELFCLASS64 Failed to load module: /usr/lib/gio/modules/libgvfsdbus.so (vuescan:11840): Pango-WARNING **: libthai.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory (vuescan:11840): Pango-WARNING **: Failed to load Pango module '/usr/lib32/pango/1.6.0/modules/pango-thai-lang.so' for id 'ThaiScriptEngineLang' $ Turns out that VueScan _runs_ just hunky dory. But something within it (or a shared library that it uses) makes shite assumptions about modules, and the missing modules means that VueScan, while it runs successfully, doesn't actually work correctly. Regards Peter Miller pmil...@opensource.org.au /\/\*http://miller.emu.id.au/pmiller/ PGP public key ID: 1024D/D0EDB64D fingerprint = AD0A C5DF C426 4F03 5D53 2BDB 18D8 A4E2 D0ED B64D See http://www.keyserver.net or any PGP keyserver for public key. Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest. -- Mark Twain -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] deleting older files from /boot
On Tue, February 9, 2010 2:25 pm, Mark Walkom wrote: I should also have said you'd need to remove this as well - linux-image-2.6.31-14-generic-pae That will remove the vmlinuz and initrd files and rebuild grub. On 9 February 2010 14:23, Mark Walkom markwal...@gmail.com wrote: You are better off using apt (or dpkg) to remove the packages, eg; m...@bender:~$ sudo apt-get remove linux-headers-2.6.31-14 Reading package lists... Done Mark, thanks again I just noticed that uname has: # uname -a Linux 2.6.9-55.0.9.EL #1 Thu Sep 27 18:10:45 EDT 2007 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux whereas in /boot I have numbers past it: vmlinuz-2.6.9-55.0.9.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-78.0.22.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-89.0.20.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-78.0.13.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-89.0.11.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-89.0.7.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-78.0.17.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-89.0.15.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-89.0.9.EL as well as earlier ones: vmlinuz-2.6.9-42.0.10.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-55.0.6.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-67.0.4.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-42.0.3.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-55.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-78.0.1.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-42.0.8.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-67.0.15.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-78.0.5.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-42.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-67.0.1.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-78.0.8.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-55.0.12.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-67.0.20.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-55.0.2.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-67.0.22.EL so do I remove all numbers lower that what uname has ?? -- Voytek -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] deleting older files from /boot
Well I already totally missed your Centos mention before so I may not be the best source of advice here ;) I only have minor experience with yum sorry, hopefully someone else can lend a hand. On 9 February 2010 15:04, Voytek Eymont li...@sbt.net.au wrote: Mark, thanks again I just noticed that uname has: # uname -a Linux 2.6.9-55.0.9.EL #1 Thu Sep 27 18:10:45 EDT 2007 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux whereas in /boot I have numbers past it: vmlinuz-2.6.9-55.0.9.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-78.0.22.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-89.0.20.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-78.0.13.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-89.0.11.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-89.0.7.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-78.0.17.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-89.0.15.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-89.0.9.EL as well as earlier ones: vmlinuz-2.6.9-42.0.10.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-55.0.6.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-67.0.4.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-42.0.3.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-55.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-78.0.1.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-42.0.8.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-67.0.15.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-78.0.5.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-42.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-67.0.1.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-78.0.8.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-55.0.12.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-67.0.20.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-55.0.2.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-67.0.22.EL so do I remove all numbers lower that what uname has ?? -- Voytek -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] deleting older files from /boot
On Tuesday 09 February 2010 12:05:02 slug-requ...@slug.org.au wrote: You are better off using apt (or dpkg) to remove the packages, eg; m...@bender:~$ sudo apt-get remove linux-headers-2.6.31-14 Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done The following packages will be REMOVED: linux-headers-2.6.31-14 linux-headers-2.6.31-14-generic linux-headers-2.6.31-14-generic-pae 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 3 to remove and 0 not upgraded. After this operation, 90.8MB disk space will be freed. Do you want to continue [Y/n]? y (Reading database ... 240067 files and directories currently installed.) Removing linux-headers-2.6.31-14-generic-pae ... Removing linux-headers-2.6.31-14-generic ... dpkg: warning: while removing linux-headers-2.6.31-14-generic, directory '/lib/modules/2.6.31-14-generic' not empty so not removed. Removing linux-headers-2.6.31-14 ... On 9 February 2010 14:07, Voytek Eymont li...@sbt.net.au wrote: my centos system just run out of space on /boot: # df Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol00 101793144 28730252 67892104 30% / /dev/cciss/c0d0p198747 92263 1385 99% /boot none 1168044 0 1168044 0% /dev/shm /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol02 1064312 34180976068 4% /tmp if I delete older versions of init-rd*, vmlinuz*, do I need to do anything else after deleteting the older files ? All good except centos does not use the apt tools. You can use the rpm tools eg rpm -qf /boot/this-or-that and rpm -e this-or-that You can also use the menu-add/remove to do admin James -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] deleting older files from /boot
On Tuesday 09 February 2010 12:05:02 slug-requ...@slug.org.au wrote: On Tue, February 9, 2010 2:25 pm, Mark Walkom wrote: I should also have said you'd need to remove this as well - linux-image-2.6.31-14-generic-pae That will remove the vmlinuz and initrd files and rebuild grub. On 9 February 2010 14:23, Mark Walkom markwal...@gmail.com wrote: You are better off using apt (or dpkg) to remove the packages, eg; m...@bender:~$ sudo apt-get remove linux-headers-2.6.31-14 Reading package lists... Done Mark, thanks again I just noticed that uname has: # uname -a Linux 2.6.9-55.0.9.EL #1 Thu Sep 27 18:10:45 EDT 2007 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux whereas in /boot I have numbers past it: vmlinuz-2.6.9-55.0.9.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-78.0.22.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-89.0.20.E L vmlinuz-2.6.9-78.0.13.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-89.0.11.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-89.0.7.E L vmlinuz-2.6.9-78.0.17.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-89.0.15.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-89.0.9.E L as well as earlier ones: vmlinuz-2.6.9-42.0.10.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-55.0.6.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-67.0.4.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-42.0.3.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-55.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-78.0.1.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-42.0.8.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-67.0.15.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-78.0.5.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-42.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-67.0.1.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-78.0.8.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-55.0.12.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-67.0.20.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-55.0.2.EL vmlinuz-2.6.9-67.0.22.EL Current offerings seem to be: [saturn] /home/jam [51]% cat /etc/issue CentOS release 5.4 (Final) Kernel \r on an \m [saturn] /home/jam [52]% uname -a Linux saturn.home 2.6.18-164.10.1.el5 #1 SMP Thu Jan 7 20:00:41 EST 2010 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux Before you fiddle you need to get your systen straightened out, then remove what-you-are-not-using [saturn] /home/jam [53]% ls /boot config-2.6.18-164.10.1.el5 symvers-2.6.18-164.10.1.el5.gz grub/ System.map-2.6.18-164.10.1.el5 initrd-2.6.18-164.10.1.el5.img vmlinuz-2.6.18-164.10.1.el5 message James -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] deleting older files from /boot
Do rpm -qa | grep kernel then do: yum erase kernel-XYZ of the older ones. Do not delete the files in boot directly as you stuff up your rpm database and yum WILL get confused jobst On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 02:07:53PM +1100, Voytek Eymont (li...@sbt.net.au) wrote: my centos system just run out of space on /boot: # df Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol00 101793144 28730252 67892104 30% / /dev/cciss/c0d0p198747 92263 1385 99% /boot none 1168044 0 1168044 0% /dev/shm /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol02 1064312 34180976068 4% /tmp if I delete older versions of init-rd*, vmlinuz*, do I need to do anything else after deleteting the older files ? -- Voytek -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- I have a license to kill -9! | |0| | Jobst Schmalenbach, jo...@barrett.com.au, General Manager | | |0| Barrett Consulting Group P/L The Meditation Room P/L |0|0|0| +61 3 9532 7677, POBox 277, Caulfield South, 3162, Australia -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
