Discuss June 2005

discuss@lists.centos.org

197 participants
362 discussions

Re: [CentOS] Centos 3 - yum update error (rpm-libs)
by thorsten＠uni.de 22 Jun '05

22 Jun '05

ok, but how do I reinstall rpm-4.2.3-13.WB2.i386.rpm with rpm-4.2.3-21_nonptl.i386.rpm? When I do a 'rpm -e rpm' I can't install rpm's anymore. When I do a 'rpm -Uhv --force rpm-4.2.3-21_nonptl.i386.rpm' I have duplicate rpm-rpms. cheers, Thorsten

1 0

Script for compiling custom kernel modules
by Juan Carlos 22 Jun '05

22 Jun '05

Hello fellow Linux users. So far I have been good about not adding too many third party software on my servers. One exception is that I generally need third party kernel modules for my hardware. Two of the most important being lm_sensors and 3ware 9000 ones. Now Update 5 includes a 3ware 9000 modules so I might not need to build my own in the future although I think the one I mentioned is not the type that automatically updates the firmware on the card after a reboot but that is for another post. I'm sure there are people out there who have to build kernel modules for their hardware as well. But it is a bit of a pain to keep doing that each time there is a newe kernel security update. So is anyone using scripts to automate this process that they would like to share? It's not like each computer has different hardware, it is all the same but not all of them have tools like gcc and kernel source installed. Only one computer where I compile stuff. Easier to maintain this way. What do you think?

2 1

NTFS for CentOS 4.(0|1)
by Rodrigo Barbosa 22 Jun '05

22 Jun '05

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Do we have the ntfs kernel module (readyonly is ok) prebuilt avaliable anywhere for the stock CentOS 4.(0|1) kernel ? Any other options ? Maybe some userspace tool. TIA, - -- Rodrigo Barbosa <rodrigob(a)suespammers.org> "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCsxTApdyWzQ5b5ckRAjPiAJ97g2+I6kcIvywIkpj5Vc+xG8iHRgCgwV6c K7dPbe++CuCtp/MakkNuv6E= =N0L3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

5 9

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 4.0 -> 4.1 update failing
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 22 Jun '05

22 Jun '05

From: Dan Pritts <danno(a)internet2.edu> > I read a web page that suggested that in some cases software built for > "i686" would not in fact work on Via C3 processors (this is near & dear > to my heart since i just bought a motherboard based on one). The C3 > is definitely a modern platform - it's not fast by modern standards but it > works well enough for many applications and its heat/power requirements > are wonderful (circa 10 watts). It all depends how you define "modern." The IDT-Centaur team found that it was very easy to build a chip that dedicated more transistors to a larger cache that get into a lot of pipeline optimizations, out-of-order execution, etc... They were able to build the WinChip in 18 months -- instead of 36+ for a traditional design. The first design also ran on standard 3.3V CMOS and was quite a bit more tolerant of variances. Cyrix did similar with the design of the M2/Geode. The C3 is ViA's evolution of the WinChip-M2 line, in a Socket-370 package for Intel GTL+ under official license from Intel. As much as non-x86 platforms promise more performance for lower power, it's hard to best some of the low-power designs of the x86 world at their economies of scale. > The discussion suggested that the "cmov" instruction was the problem. Yes, the "cmov" instruction is an optional i686 instruction in Intel's own documentation. ViA (possibly both Cyrix and IDT-Centaur too) probably thought it was either a waste of transistors or, more likely, a timing nightmare to integrate into the ALU/control. In fact, if it was considered optional, it sounds like an engineer realized that it could have design impact when the i686 ISA was written (probably in advance of the actual release of the Pentium Pro, or in consideration of Intel's own, future i686 designs). <flammage=on> Intel continues to be the poster child for 1970s CS thought when it comes to overbloat of an already CISC pig. Ironically, at one time, they partnered with Digital on the Alpha chip, which is definitely the most over-anal of RISC architectures. I.e., if it could hold up timing, it didn't go in the AXP ISA -- and they were extremely anal on this to the point of not even including an 8 or 16-bit LOAD/STOR (although Digital finally caved in this in 21164 -- but all other 8/16-bit data operations were always left out). </flammage> The GCC i686 target, unfortunately, assumes it always exists. I can semi-understand the logic, because for a run-time to always test would add a a number of bytes to every single program. And the software workaround takes over 100x more clock cycles. > I, of course, had similar upgrade problems to the original poster. > I don't really care about the performance optimizations from "i386" > to "i686" as long as i'll continue to have something that works. i486 was liberally licensed by Intel under reasonable terms after a US court said numbers could not be trademarked (Intel was hoping to make money on trademark licensing in conjunction). i686/GTL+ was only licensed by ViA, although I'll assume the lack of a cmov instruction in Cyrix/IDT-Centaur designs pre-dates that license. > One additional interesting data point. The CentOS 4.0 installer > gave me the "i586" glibc and the "i686" kernel. I would hope that > this would be consistent. That's not what you want. You want to drop down to a i486 instead of running i586. Here's a general guide: --march=i486 Runs well on a non-superscalar i486, obviously. Runs fairly well on a super-scalar ix86 that does i486, although optimizations for the specific architecture should be used. Portions may run like crap oni586 (true Pentium/MMX), especially ALU control. --march=i486 --mtune=i686 Still runs well on a non-superscalar i486 because superscalar optimizations don't affect it. Runs near-optimal on a superscalar ix86 that has at least the same 7-issue core of the Pentium Pro-P3 (2+2+3 ALU+FPU+control). Even more likely to run like crap on i586 because it assumes the ALU is 2-issue and well-designed, and i586's just ain't anywhere near 'dat! --march=i486 --mtune=i586 (or --march=i586) Improves performance of many operations singificantly on i586. On i486 (if --march=i486, --march=i586 will not run) and i686, will use the chip rather inefficently. E.g., (and this is just 1 example) generated machine code will ripple integers through what it assumes is a pipelined FPU. On an i486 or anything but an Athlon clone, this will not only tie up the FPU, but significantly and artifically delay integer loads. On a true Intel i686 or AMD Athlon, it will leave the 2 and 3 ALU pipes, respectively, unused. Worse yet, the original Nx586 (through the Athlon) is 3x faster at ALU loads than i586, and it is a clear "de-optimization" And that's just 1 example. ;-> --march=i686 Offers little performance gain over --march=i486 --mtune=i686, while not running at all on an i486 or i586. --march=i486|i686 --mtune=pentium4 Offers not only improved performance on the Pentium 4, but all Athlons as well. --march=i486|i686 --mtune=athlon This option has been widely debated. It really _kills_ Intel performance because Intel i686's 2+2 (ALU+FPU) is not going to handle optimizations for AMD Athlon's 3+3 (ALU+FPU) and is going to have lots of stalls (especially on Pentium 4, don't get me started ;-). At the same time, the Athlon benefit is debatable for general applications -- although engineering and scientific _will_ see a good boost (40% is not uncommon). The reason why is simple. Intel's 1 complex _or_ 2 ADD FPU only allows 1 MULT at full 64-bit precision (and not SSE "lossy math") whereas AMD's 2 complex _and_ 1 ADD/MULT allows 3 MULT at full 64-bit precision. Plus, today, you're typically going to be running Athlon64/Opteron, and you get such "optimizations for free" on x86-64 targets. SIDE NOTE: -O3 ... _never_ run -O3 with --march=pentium3, pentium4 or athlon. You're asking for "lossy math" in the case of the former, and unstable optmizations in the case of the latter. It should _only_ be used when you developed the application and know what you're doing. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

3 2

GD Support
by Jon McCauley 22 Jun '05

22 Jun '05

Hi Everyone, I am building a script for a client and my imagecreatefromjpeg() is throwing a fatal exception, and dying. It seems as my server with CentOS 4, PHP 4.3.9 doesn't have >= GD-1.8 support or better. I did a phpinfo() and I can not find any reference to GD..............Any help on this would be well appricated -- Best Regards, Jon McCauley

2 2

Raidcore SATA support
by Mark Weaver 21 Jun '05

21 Jun '05

Hi all, I was wondering if anyone has tried and succeeded to use this controller. Its the bc4852 SATA controller. There's supposed to be support for it, but so far we've not been able to get the driver to load during the install and thus we've got no "valid drive" on which to load the OS. thanks, -- Mark

1 0

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 4.0 -> 4.1 update failing
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 21 Jun '05

21 Jun '05

From: Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists(a)hughesjr.com> > All of that is probably true ... but the optimizations are already set > by default by the config.guess and autoconf and automake for almost all > RedHat SRPMS ... and CentOS doesn't change those, unless absolutely > necessary. Which is what I agree is most preferrable. > Therefore, for almost all packages on CentOS-3 they are --march=i386 > --mtune=i686 ... Maybe I need to look a bit deeper then. I could have swore I've seen many packages with Makefiles (after any autoconf) that clearly send to stdout a "gcc ... --march=i486". Maybe I'm thinking too much of just the kernel itself. > and for most CentOS-4 packages they are --march=i386 -- > mtune=pentium4 ... being that the default target is i386. Yep, I guess the --mtune=pentium4 was introduced with FC2+. I would recommend Intel backtrack though, because it's not the most ideal for other i686 architectures (only true P4 or Athlon). Although the performance hit is not that much. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

1 0

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 4.0 -> 4.1 update failing
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 21 Jun '05

21 Jun '05

From: Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists(a)hughesjr.com> > Right ... but in a software capacity we are also talking about pentium, > pentium mmx, cyrix i686, amd k6, via c3 that use i586 packages. No! You _never_ want anything but a _true_ Pentium or Pentium MMX using i586. i586 ISA and/or optimization are _not_ good for anything but those 2 chips. You want to use i686 for AMD K6, Cyrix M2 and Via C3. You want to use i486 for AMD K5 and Cyrix 6x86/M1. This is one of the most misunderstood details in the user world. > CentOS is trying to provide limited support for them. This support > doesn't in any way affect other packages like glibc.i686 or the i686 > kernels ... In case someone might be concerned about a CentOS / RHEL > divergence. The i586 packages are only installed on machines that have > i586 processors ... I understand that. But the point you are missing is that there are _only_2_ "i586 ISA" processors: Pentium and Pentium MMX Do not confuse "i586 class" with "i586 ISA." I appreciate that CentOS offers these added processors, since Red Hat does not consider it their bother -- whether they only ship i486 and i686, or just i686 now (since all designs of the mid-to-late '90s are i686 ISA). > if you have i686 then that is what is installed on your machine. I understand. > Red Hat did seem open to at least reviewing a patch to the glibc > package that provides i586 support if we get it working. And that's great. But I'm sure the marketshare is why they didn't do it themselves. Right now, the market is: i686 ISA compatible > i486 ISA compatible > i586 ISA compatible And it's been like that for awhile. But even before then, it's _always_ been: i486 ISA compatible > i586 ISA compatible i586 is not recommended, even if i686 ISA compatible typically means i586 is supported. It's just rather poor performing, and you can occassionally run into a serious instruction issue (especially with early i686 clones that did i686 fine, but not always i586). There is _no_ "i586 clone" -- no one would purposely clone the Pentium's instruction set because it was quickly superceded by i686 for good reasons. Unfortunately, Intel took forever to get past its Pentium Pro offering, which was never designed for consumers, and finally offer an i686 for consumers in the Pentium II. Hence why i686 clones like the AMD K6 actually pre-date much of the widespread consumer adoption of an i686 from Intel itself because the consumer chip didn't hit for years after its first ISA. idSoftware always had excellent commentary on i586 v. i686, largely because they found some of the best hacks for i586 to get around many of its ALU design flaws. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

7 10

question about updates with centos 3.x / Upgrade to 3.5 for the updates or reinstall all servers with centos 3 ?
by Cesar Lagarrigue 21 Jun '05

21 Jun '05

Hello i have a doubt, if i installed 3.3 , 3.4 or 3.5, i see the mirrors removed the 3.1-3.4 i have a 3.3 running ....but i thinked the rhel flavors are supposed to long life (3~5 years) but not understand, i to upgrade to 3.5 for have the lastest updates? Reinstall servers to centos 3.5 are big job... or then i have to install centos 3 with no revision for have long life s.o for get the updates? Thanks a lot. -- Cesar Lagarrigue V. Ingeniero de sistemas BEE Consultorías y Sistemas Fono : (562) 231-7131 Fax: (562) 231-7136 Carmencita 25 Of.62 Las Condes Santiago de Chile www.bee.cl

4 3

MySQL 5
by Marco Bascietto 21 Jun '05

21 Jun '05

Hello List, has anyone installed MySQL 5 on a CentOS box from the RHEL 4 rpms found in [1]? Any tips to perform the installation in the SElinux environment? Best regards, Marco [1] http://dev.mysql.com/downloads/mysql/5.0.html

1 0

← Newer
1
...
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
...
37
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss June 2005