On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 01:45:45AM +0200, Antonello wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 August 2003 01:10, Otto Solares wrote:
>
> > > As I told you in private email gcc-3.3 can only successfully
> > > compile current 2.4.22-rcX kernels.
> > As per Ben Collin's info, we can use woody's gcc-3.3.1
> > to compile
On Tuesday 19 August 2003 01:36, Martin wrote:
> I'm on a 333Mhz UltraSPARC IIi and I would find it difficult to describe
> it as poor. Clock speed doesn't really mean much in terms of real CPU
> system / performance IMHO. Most of the folks I know turn their noses up
> at it because it's not up
On Tuesday 19 August 2003 01:10, Otto Solares wrote:
> > As I told you in private email gcc-3.3 can only successfully
> > compile current 2.4.22-rcX kernels.
> As per Ben Collin's info, we can use woody's gcc-3.3.1
> to compile 2.6 kernels.
2.6 is not for me at the moment, at least on my Sun box,
> > Moreover, I'm trying a home-made dual head display with a PCI Ati Radeon
> And as I also told you in private email the only hope for
> reliable multi-head is some combination of Creator3D and
> ATI Mach64 cards containing Sun firmware.
I've been pondering trying this for some time using some o
> My aim is to expand the graphic capabilities of this box at least to have a
> dual head like in my ex-PC and, if the poor 333-Mhz processor
I'm on a 333Mhz UltraSPARC IIi and I would find it difficult to describe
it as poor. Clock speed doesn't really mean much in terms of real CPU
system / per
> As I told you in private email gcc-3.3 can only successfully
> compile current 2.4.22-rcX kernels.
Thanks a lot.
I suspected something similar but I wasn't sure about it.
So far, so good. I'll try a rc kernel then
> And as I also told you in private email the only hope for
> reliable multi-head
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 04:00:45PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 00:04:39 +0200
> Antonello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The only difference I notice is the use of EGCS in the Debian build, while
> > I
> > used a more vanilla gcc-3.3 (the current unstable builds).
>
>
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 00:04:39 +0200
Antonello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only difference I notice is the use of EGCS in the Debian build, while I
> used a more vanilla gcc-3.3 (the current unstable builds).
As I told you in private email gcc-3.3 can only successfully
compile current 2.4.22-
On Monday 18 August 2003 21:35, David S. Miller wrote:
> > Success with "make xconfig", kernel compiles ok, but after image
> > decompression (by SILO, of course), the box hangs with a "data access
> > exception" and I'm back at the "ok" prompt.
> The kernel is probably too big. "make image" then
When I use the command:
'mount -t smbfs //server/share mountpoint -o username=user'
to mount a share it successfully mounts, but gives the error:
'smbfs: Unrecognized mount option vers'
I also get this error using smbmount. When I mount the exact same share
on an i386 machine I do not get this
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:05:12 +0200
Antonello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Success with "make xconfig", kernel compiles ok, but after image
> decompression
> (by SILO, of course), the box hangs with a "data access exception" and I'm
> back at the "ok" prompt.
The kernel is probably too big. "ma
On Monday 18 August 2003 15:53, Volker Augustin (multi.art.studio) wrote:
> installation was fine and very fast on my u5/333/512 and u160 scsi, wow -
> a rocket.
> after finishing install i was asked to boot..ok, but my sun is only
> booting from ide0. i tried to add some devaliases on my boot
> As someone else noted, soft RAID should not be much different on SPARC
> vs any other platform, given similar kernel vintages and the CPU
> capacity to take advantage of RAID 0 speed or RAID 1 redundancy.
That was me. The only differences could be in booting from the raid disks.
I solved this wi
On 17 Aug 2003 11:02:32 -0400
Steve Pacenka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-08-11 at 22:53, David S. Miller wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 19:54:24 -0400
> > Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Sounds to me like the power button on the front is stuck or something.
> >
> >
On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 14:50, Rob Wultsch wrote:
> > For learning. My employer lost a day's mail for about 3000 people
> > recently due to a failure of a RAID 0+mirror setup (two separate RAID 0
> > systems, I believe each having 4-drive arrays). A drive in the main
> > RAID 0 array failed, an
hi there,
deb is great. i downloaded the new release 1 of woody 3 and everything is
fine.
with a little trick i was also able to install it on a scsidisk with an
adaptec 19160 - i had to mount my previous root partition first before i
could load moduleswhat a luck i got an ide hdd alsoi do
v.augustin said:
> what about that problem? is it fixed in woody3R1 ?
> is it worth downloading it?
I think it's a bug in the CD. it's easy to workaround, what
I do is mount the CD on another system, take a look at what's
in /boot and what's in SILO.CONF(I think that's it..) and
put the param
On 17 Aug 2003 11:02:32 -0400
Steve Pacenka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 15:2898143 SABRE UE:7ee, SABRE CE:7ef, SABRE PCIERR:7f0, power:7e5
Unless you have a stream of PCI errors in your kernel
logs, the power button is sending interrupts out like
crazy, YIKES!
I'll see if there is some wa
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:10:23 +0200 (CEST)
David List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have seen no other reports from Linux/Ultra Sparc users making
> any connection between the ethernet lockups and the tty respawning
> problem. In my case the connection seemed very real.
There is no connection bet
19 matches
Mail list logo
