- Discuss - lists.centos.org

Missing 4.1 SRPMS?
by James Pearson 24 Jun '05

24 Jun '05

I can't seem to find autofs-4.1.3-131.src.rpm on the download mirrors... I notice that there are not many SRPMS in the 4.1 /centos/4.1/os/SRPMS directory on the download mirrors - is this because most can be found under /centos/4.0/os/SRPMS and /centos/4.0/updates/SRPMS? - or should all the 4.1 SRPMS be in /centos/4.1/os/SRPMS ? Thanks James Pearson

8 11

Multiple IP Addresses in a single NIC
by Joao Medeiros 23 Jun '05

23 Jun '05

Hi all, I've been trying to add a second ip address to one of my network cards in my CentOS box. I've defined the alias on top of eth1 which has become eth1:1 with a different ip address. I can ping the new ip address both from my linux box as well as from my Windoze desktop, however I can only access my Apache web server setup as a virtual host from within the Linux box. If I try to access it from the desktop I get an "Operation Timeout..." error. I'm sure I missed out something really basic. Browsed Google and the CentOS mailing list (plus RH) and can't figure it out. Networking is not one of my best subjects... Someone care to shed some light or point me to a fairly decent link out there which covers this topic? TIA, --JM João Medeiros Linux User 381318

2 1

Re: Opteron Mobo Suggestions
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 23 Jun '05

23 Jun '05

From: Peter Arremann <loony(a)loonybin.org> > Actually, support for the 9500s has gotten quite a lot better over the past > few months - you might want to give them another try. A college of mine > mis-ordered a few of them when they first came out and at the beginning the > results were less than stallar. By now (FC4 and CentOS 4U1) the drivers are > stable enough that the tests I ran could no longer crash the box. That is good to here. My actual experience had been limited, but positive. But given the slew of issues, I just stopped recommending the 9500S until I heard otherwise. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

3 2

Build scripts for CentOS4?
by James Pearson 23 Jun '05

23 Jun '05

Are there any scripts available for rebuilding CentOS4 - or more specifically rebuilding a custom boot.iso? There is a /scripts directory on the download mirrors, but these scripts are specific to CentOS3/i386 Thanks James Pearson

2 2

Microcode error
by Adam Breaux 23 Jun '05

23 Jun '05

/etc/init.d/microcode_ctl start /etc/init.d/microcode_ctl: microcode device /dev/cpu/microcode doesn't exist? This is on a clean install from the 4.1 x86 ISO. This is the 2nd box that is reporting this error. Adam Breaux Sr. Network Administrator Domain Bank, Inc. 23 W 4th St. Bethlehem, PA 18015 Phone: 610.317.9606 Fax: 610.317.9570 abreaux(a)domainbank.com http://www.domainbank.com

2 1

Re: Opteron Mobo Suggestions
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 23 Jun '05

23 Jun '05

From: Peter Farrow <peter(a)farrows.org> > I had trouble with Tyan boards and BIOS revisions not getting Processor > numbers and speeds correct. > We also had early life failures with Asus boards, and since switched to > MSI, we now use the MSI 9161 > K8D Master 3 > http://www.msi.com.tw/program/products/server/svr/pro_svr_detail.php?UID=560 > without any problems.. Ack, no block diagram in MSI's manual. It's an AMD8131+AMD8111, no HyperTransport tunnel for any video channels. So you can probably assume AMD8111 bridge attached to AMD8131 tunnel to CPU #0. Since there is only one high-speed tunnel, you really can't get more optimal than adding another HT tunnel chip. I guess I'm just looking for the "holy grail" in (2) AMD813x's on a 2-way board. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

1 0

Postfix problem with DNS
by Jakub Wojtanowski 23 Jun '05

23 Jun '05

Today I have changed my DSL modem and problems with postfix begun. It receives mail, but cannot send any. In logs I can read Jun 22 19:39:53 server postfix/smtp[5040]: 9A51711FF85: to=address(a)somedomain.com, relay=none, delay=12840, status=deferred (Host or domain name not found. Name service error for name=somedomain.com type=MX: Host not found, try again) My resolv.conf is proper. I can ping any server, but postfix cannot see them. What can I do ? Postfix 2.1.5 Best Regards Kuba ---------------------------------------------------------------------- OMNIXMAIL! Jesli masz telefon w sieci Era i dostep do WAP, to mozesz na komorce odbierac poczte ze wszystkich swoich kont poczty e-mail! OMNIXMAIL jest w Era Omnix: http://link.interia.pl/f1896

3 2

NTFS patitions in CentOS
by Dominik Składanowski 23 Jun '05

23 Jun '05

Hi, I tried to mount NTFS partitions to my CentOS installation. The message is: "mount: fs type ntfs not supported by kernel" Is any possibility to mount it? Maybe I should load some kernel module? Regards -- ____________________________________________________________________ D o m i n i k S k ł a d a n o w s k i

3 2

Re: Opteron Mobo Suggestions
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 23 Jun '05

23 Jun '05

From: Chris Mauritz <chrism(a)imntv.com> > If you have a task that's I/O bound, then perhaps Bryan's concerns will > impact your decision on a motherboard. For my purposes, I'm mostly cpu > bound, Then it doesn't apply. > it really doesn't mean a hell of a lot to me that one cpu is > "stuck" with mundane I/O tasks. And as cpus get faster and faster, > this becomes less of an issue (if it's really an issue at all for most > tasks). That's not it at all. It has nothing to do with CPU performance. It has everything to do with interconnect and the processor affinity with regards to I/O and memory mapped transfers. > Also, as Bryan mentions, the S2895 splits the I/O up a bit > better and the newer revs of that board support dual core Opterons > too. Technically, all mainboards should support dual-core Opterons. But the market reality is why give consumers a BIOS update when you can charge for a new mainboard? ;-> Dual-core A64/Opterons don't change the interconnect one bit. Dual-core Xeons/P4s are a whole different story. > So if you're in an I/O heavy environment you could choose that > board rather than the S2882. Assume you could make use of one of the PCIe x16 slots for a storage or other communications device, as well as the 2nd NIC. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

3 3

Re: Opteron Mobo Suggestions
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 23 Jun '05

23 Jun '05

From: Kirk Bocek <t004(a)kbocek.com> > I've been planning to build a dual Opteron server for awhile. > I'd like to get people's suggestions on a suitable motherboard. I assume you read 2004 November Sys Admin on the Opteron, including avoiding cheap mainboard designs? http://www.samag.com/documents/sam0411b/ Specifically figure 6 for a 2-way mainboard: http://www.samag.com/documents/s=9408/sam0411b/0411b_f6.htm > I've looked at the Tyan K8SE (S2892) and K8SRE (S2891) but would > like to find more Linux-specific experiences with these boards. On 2-way, you want one with an AMD8131 (or AMD8132) HyperTransport PCI-X 1.0 (2.0) tunnel. On 4-way, you want one with at least 2 such tunnels. I assume you want 2-way. The S2891 is a nice, 2-way board for 1/2U. The S2892 is nice if you want more of a traditional SSI EEB mainboard. They are true NUMA and don't cut corners on the CPU and memory. _But_, unfortunately _both_ mainboards put _all_ I/O on CPU #1. That's not ideal. As such, you might be better of going with the S2895 which puts the nForce Pro 2050 and 1 GbE NIC on CPU #2, at least if you have a PCIe storage or NIC cards. It looks more like a workstation board, but the fact that 1 embedded GbE NIC _and_ 1 PCIe slot is on CPU #2 helps improve processor affinity for I/O (especially under Solaris, but even Linux to an extent as well). Tyan continues to disappoint me by putting _all_ I/O on 1 CPU. The only option where they don't is the nForce Pro 2200+2050 combination on the S2895 where the 2050 goes on CPU #2. Tyan should put the AMD8131 on CPU #2 on the 2891/2892 so it doesn't contend with the nForce 2200 on CPU #1 and its slots/peripherals (and there is no 2050). > Some features I expect are at least 4 SATA (SATA-300?) ports, ??? Why "dumb" SATA channels ??? Why not a 3Ware Escalade 8506-4+ or a LSI Logic MegaRAID 300-8X? > serial console support in the BIOS, Any PhoenixBIOS will typically give you that. > USB 2.0 and IEEE-1394 ports, On a server? The last thing you want is any storage over those two. I've been ripping out a lot of external storage solutions that use USB 2.0 or IEEE-1394 because they put server stability at risk. > low-end on-board video. Most low-footprint mainboards have video on-mainboard these days. Typically just glued to a PCI bus. > Anyone care to share their experiences? Just curious why you want "dumb" SATA channels, let alone external storage over USB or FireWire on a _server_. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

6 6

Automated YUM update kills DNS
by Jeff Lasman 23 Jun '05

23 Jun '05

We've got several CentOS 3.x systems running DNS that we keep updated automatically via YUM. Recently two of those systems (not all of them) when updating themselves to the latest versions of BIND, automatically replaced /etc/named.conf with a new one and saved the old one as /etc/named.conf.rpmsave. Which of course broke DNS for those servers. All servers got updated, but only two of them did the rewrite. Any ideas as to why it might have happed, or how to make sure it doesn't happen again? Hopefully nothing so simplistic as "exclude bind from auto updates" though if that's the only answer, we'll take it. Thanks. Jeff -- Jeff Lasman, Nobaloney Internet Services 1254 So Waterman Ave., Suite 50, San Bernardino, CA 92408 Our blists address used on lists is for list email only Phone +1 909 266-9209, or see: "http://www.nobaloney.net/contactus.html"

4 3

Re: [CentOS] Re: Opteron Mobo Suggestions
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 22 Jun '05

22 Jun '05

From: Kirk Bocek <t004(a)kbocek.com> > Yea, but who *is* this guy? :) I heard he is a jerk. ;-ppp > Don't really need physical 4-way. > I'm planning on 2-way dual core. On a server where throughput is king, everything is I/O. Dual-core just gives you more computing. > I mostly just want to see how two or three striped SATA drives will > perform. If the on-board ports don't perform, I can always add a > separate controller later. My understanding is that NCQ support isn't > here yet for Linux but that it should provide a boost. Do you understand what NCQ does? It allows an intelligent drive to queue for the bus, because the bus is dumb. So what do you think an intelligent strorage controller does? (light bulb!) 3Ware Escalade 7000/8000s are the undesputed king of queuing in ATA. You can't beat real-time ASIC+SRAM queuing! It can service requests faster than anything. That's why 3Ware calls it a "storage switch," because it's like having a "layer 3 switch" instead of a "layer 3 router" (traditional microcontroller+DRAM). And it's _ideal_ for RAID-0, 1 and 10. > Not for primary storage. Mostly just future proofing here. Throw in a $10 card. Besides, they all come with it these days. > I've been meaning to setup a backup system using external hard > drives instead of tape. That wouldn't fly over USB 1.1. Put in an out-of-band GbE card or iSCSI HBA instead. Trust me on this, you do _not_ want USB or FireWire. > So, Brian, having given me all that good information (thanks again), > what specific models do you suggest? What are *you* running on? I like the HP DL385 (2-way) and DL585 (4-way) servers. They use the reference AMD designs -- including (2) AMD813x's in the DL585: http://www.samag.com/documents/s=9408/sam0411b/0411b_f5.htm Do you need 4-way for computation? Or throughput? If the latter, then dual-core on 2-way is not going to give you anything. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

4 3

Re: [CentOS] Re: Opteron Mobo Suggestions
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 22 Jun '05

22 Jun '05

From: Peter Arremann <loony(a)loonybin.org> > Bryan, > there are sometimes more important things than max performance... > Upgradability i.e. ... If you buy a complete server its one thing, but if > you're offering parts and people build there own they often do consider > upgradability. If you buy a server that right now should run fine with 1 CPU > but you want to upgrade later to a second one, then the Tyan design is for > you. This way you can run all your I/O still and still not have to pay extra > for the second CPU up front. The Tyan website even mentions this somewhere as > the reason for the design decision. And I understand this. And I understand why Tyan might offer it on _some_ models. But not _all_ models. ;-> That's what I can't believe. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

2 1

Re: [CentOS] Re: Opteron Mobo Suggestions
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 22 Jun '05

22 Jun '05

From: Ugo Bellavance <ugob(a)camo-route.com> > I don't really know, but you could get a pretty cheap NAS with a gigabit > nic to do your backups instead of using USB/Firewire. And then attach any tape or other media library to that. There is this farce out there among sysadmins that they have to do backups to tape or other media in "real-time" during a time-limited "window." No, no, no, no, NO! REALITY: You only need to send the data in real-time during the window to a "buffering" system that actually then commits it to tape or other media at _any_ time it chooses. BONUSES: - I can send just a "differential" to that system, instead of a full filesystem dump (even if I want a "full" backup ;-). - I can restore from that "near-line" system whenever I want (assuming it is still on-line) - many others ... This is what has now evolved into the concept of a "virtual tape library." A near-line storage device that buffers between end systems that have limited backup windows and the tape (or other media) you may or may not need to always commit to. Be sure to get 2005 September Sys Admin. ;-> -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

1 0

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

22 Jun '05

>Are you doing the switch now or are you upgrading CentOS after an >already good switch? I switch sometime ago. With no Problems until this problem with rpm now. >Here is a link with specific info: >http://www.centos.org/modules/smartfaq/faq.php?faqid=19 I switch following this instruction. Now I have this: :-( # rpm -qa | grep -i rpm- rpm-python-4.2.3-21_nonptl rpm-libs-4.2.3-13.WB2 rpm-python-4.2.3-13.WB2 rpm-4.2.3-21_nonptl rpm-4.2.3-13.WB2 rpm-libs-4.2.3-21_nonptl

4 3

Re: [CentOS] Re: Opteron Mobo Suggestions
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 22 Jun '05

22 Jun '05

From: "Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith(a)ieee.org>" <thebs413(a)earthlink.net> > Tyan should put the AMD8131 on CPU #2 on the 2891/2892 > so it doesn't contend with the nForce 2200 on CPU #1 and > its slots/peripherals (and there is no 2050). I should have pointed out this is illustrated in Figure 7: http://www.samag.com/documents/s=9408/sam0411b/0411b_f7.htm -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

1 0

CentOS releases and the new and improved CentOS Vault.
by Johnny Hughes 22 Jun '05

22 Jun '05

There seems to be some confusion over the way we release CentOS, and the release cycle. First, let's define what the upstream provider does. They released RHEL-2.1 (originally RHAS-2.1), RHEL-3 and RHEL-4. Those are specific and unique releases. They have the following Maintenance Phases: Phase 1: Full Support Start Date: General Availability End Date: 2.5 Years from General Availability date Description: During the Full Support phase, new hardware support will be provided at the discretion of the upstream provider via Updates, Additionally, all available and qualified errata will be applied to the Enterprise products via Updates (or as required for Security level errata.) ------ Phase 2: Deployment Start Date: 2.5 years from General Availability (end of Full Support) End Date: 3 Years from General Availability date Description: During the Deployment phase, all available and qualified security and bug fix errata will be applied to the Enterprise products via Updates. Security Errata will be released as necessary independent an Update. ------ Phase 3: Maintenance Start Date: 3 Years from General Availability (end of Deployment) End Date: 4 Years from end of Deployment (7 years from General Availability) Description: During the Maintenance phase, only Security errata and select mission critical bug fixes will be released for the Enterprise products. ------ Phase 1 and 2 products will get Enhancement updates (RHEA), Bugfix updates (RHBA), and Security updates (RHSA), usually released 2-4 times a year. The updates have numbers (ie., Update 1, Update 2, Update 3, etc.) Currently, RHEL 3 is at Update 5, RHEL 4 is at Update 1. Phase 3 products will only get security updates, usually released individually. RHEL 2.1 is in this phase. There will probably be individual security updates released from this point forward on this distro. http://www.redhat.com/security/updates/errata/ http://www.redhat.com/security/updates/ There is no RHEL-3.4 or RHEL-3.5 ... or RHEL-4.1. If you run up2date on RHEL, you get the updates when RedHat releases them. There are separate ISOs for the different Updates ... but only one set (or tree) of updated RPMS for each distro (RHEL-2, RHEL-3, RHEL-4). If you install off any of the ISOs and then run up2date, you are at the latest update. For example, if you install off the RHEL-3 update 1 ISOs, then run up2date from RHN, you are at RHEL-3 update 5 when finished ... not RHEL-3 update 1 ... and all of this is RHEL 3. ---------------- How does this relate to CentOS releases. First thing is this ... the releases are CentOS 2, CentOS 3, and CentOS 4. Both CentOS 3.1 and CentOS 3.5 are CentOS 3 ... both CentOS 4.0 and CentOS 4.1 are CentOS 4. So, unlike moving from Mandriva 10.1 to 10.2, moving from CentOS-3.1 to CentOS-3.5 is not changing to a new major OS release ... you are just doing exactly the same thing as the above upstream example. Moving from Update 1 to Update 5. CentOS provides new ISOs (just like upstream) when an Update X is released. Let me say it again ... moving from CentOS-4.0 to CentOS-4.1 is not changing to a new major release, it is just applying normally released updates ... except, at that point, there are new ISOs, with new hardware supported at install time. So the CentOS release model is very much like the upstream one, if you run an update, you are at the latest versions for your release tree ... exactly like upstream. --------------------- That being said, there are some who want to treat CentOS-3.1 and CentOS-3.5 as a separate release (or CentOS-4.0 and CentOS-4.1) ... and not part of the same tree. That is not how CentOS is maintained, but we have decided to enhance our vault to allow those people access to the individual trees. If you look at http://vault.centos.org/ you will see that there are currently the following directories: 3.1, 3.1-final, 3.3, 3.3-final, 3.4, 3.4-final, and 4.0 In the case of the CentOS 3, the numbered releases are the starting point .. and the 3.x-final is the ending point tree for that version. In the case of CentOS 4, the 4.0 is the ending tree ... the beginning tree was just the os directory under the 4.0 tree. There are no new security updates applied to those hives, and they are a snapshot of the tree at those points. Again, the tree here are _NOT_UPDATED_ any longer ... so don't use them and expect to have an up to date system. The up to date system is the latest trees that are always available via mirror.centos.org or the pblic mirrors. The vault takes up a major amount of disc space, which will grow as we continue to release new trees and it is not replicated to public mirrors. It is also only available on one machine, so bandwidth and access may be much slower than the real CentOS trees. My advice is that you should change your way of thinking so that you maintain your software the way the upstream provider and CentOS provide it, if at all possible. However, if you cannot do this, then the vault will provide limited access to the older trees. Thanks, Johnny Hughes CentOS-4 lead developer

3 2

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

22 Jun '05

>># rpm -qa | grep -i rpm- >>rpm-python-4.2.3-21_nonptl >>rpm-libs-4.2.3-13.WB2 >>rpm-python-4.2.3-13.WB2 >>rpm-4.2.3-21_nonptl >>rpm-4.2.3-13.WB2 >>rpm-libs-4.2.3-21_nonptl > > >rpm -Uvh --replacepkgs --replacefiles rpm....rpm rpm-libs....rpm rpm-python....rpm GREAT, this works. Now it is correct: # rpm -qa | grep -i rpm- rpm-4.2.3-21_nonptl rpm-libs-4.2.3-21_nonptl rpm-python-4.2.3-21_nonptl Thanks to all! cheers, Thorsten

1 0

CentOS4 ClamAV reports zlib needs updating
by Nigel kendrick 22 Jun '05

22 Jun '05

I'm just about to update ClamAV to v0.86 on a CentOS4 box having successfully done this on a 3.3 box but... configure: error: The installed zlib version may contain a security bug. Please upgrade to 1.2.2 or later: http://www.zlib.net. You can omit this check with --disable-zlib-vcheck but DO NOT REPORT any stability issues then! Any expected probs with me doing this update from the site - I have tried with yum (including Dag's repository) and it finds no updates. Ta NK

4 3

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

22 Jun '05

Hello *, i get following error: Downloading needed headers Resolving dependencies .....Unable to satisfy dependencies Package rpm-libs needs rpm = 4.2.3-13.WB2, this is not available. I switch from WhiteBox to Centos. How can resolve this problem?

3 2

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

Dell PE 6850 with CentOS-3
by Morten Tørmoen 21 Jun '05

21 Jun '05

Hi list, I'm seeing problems when probing cdrom and floppy devices on a Dell PowerEdge 6850 (4x3.16GHz, 16GB RAM) with CentOS-3.4 using 2.4.21-27.0.4.ELhugemem. When I run snmpwalk the system hangs with 100% wait on all 8 cpu's (in HyperThreading mode) for approx 20s before it goes back to idle state. Same thing if I open/probe any of the cdrom/floppy devices in other ways also. If I BIOS-disable cdrom and floppy and prevents loading of these modules, the symptoms are gone and snmpwalk runs fine. ...but the problem still exits. :-) Has anyone encountered similar problems? Best regards, Morten -- morten tørmoen, morten(a)basefarm.no, +47 97 77 47 77 basefarm as, http://www.basefarm.no, +47 40 00 41 00

1 0

Re: [CentOS] Yum repository info
by Rohan Walsh 21 Jun '05

21 Jun '05

>> Would like to know where I could find repo info to be able to install >> frozen-bubble and/or supertux please. > >If I'm correct (but you should check the buildlogs on the website), >the >problem is building perl-SDL and SDL on RHEL3 and RHEL4, and that's >required for frozen-bubble. > >I think it even requires replacing something that belongs to base in >order >to get it done. But if you investigate and report back I will >re-evaluate my decision :) >PS You can also try the RH9 build for RHEL3, and the FC3 build for >RHEL4 >if you feel lazy. using Dags and Dries repos for Centos 4, and FC3 source repo (as below) using apt, apt-get -b source {package} will work for everything that isn't in binary for FC4 to get supertux and frozen-bubble. No doubt yum would work fine too. rpm-src http://ayo.freshrpms.net/ fedora/linux/3/i386 core rpm-src http://ayo.freshrpms.net/ fedora/linux/3/i386 os rpm-src http://ayo.freshrpms.net/ fedora/linux/3/i386 extras rpm-src http://ayo.freshrpms.net/ fedora/linux/3/i386 updates

1 0

OT: question on setting up an email server
by Jimmy Bradley 21 Jun '05

21 Jun '05

Hi guys, I realize that this might be considered to be off topic, but the machine I want to use is running Cent OS. Ok, this is what I'm thinking about trying, and mainly just to see if I can do it. I've got a total of 3 linux machines here, and I was thinking about setting one of them up as an email server. Now, I'm not talking about setting the machine up so that all I run on it is an email client like thunderbird, or evolution and retrieve email from my email account at bellsouth. What I want to try and do is set the machine up so that my machine is the email server, and I retrieve my email from it. Is what I'm thinking about even possible, or am I just simply having a case of too much oxygen on the brain? If what I'm thinking about is possible, how would I go about doing it? Thanks Jimmy

12 22

RE: [CentOS] script to make a CentOS 4.0 respository updates server...
by Mark A. Lewis 21 Jun '05

21 Jun '05

My bad. Did not read the original post. > -----Original Message----- > From: centos-bounces(a)centos.org > [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Lewis > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 8:42 PM > To: CentOS mailing list > Subject: RE: [CentOS] script to make a CentOS 4.0 respository > updates server... > > Shouldn't we be using rsync instead of wget? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: centos-bounces(a)centos.org > > [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Paul > > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 8:37 PM > > To: CentOS mailing list > > Subject: Re: [CentOS] script to make a CentOS 4.0 > respository updates > > server... > > > > On Mon, 2005-06-20 at 14:14 -0500, israel.garcia(a)cimex.com.cu wrote: > > > List, I have a CentOS 4.0 server in my intranet which will > > serves as a > > > CentOS repository updates, so I need a script to do that > job, I can > > > not use RSYNC. I just want to download CentOS 4.0 updates > > every night. > > > > > > Can you help me? > > > > > > Regards, > > > Israel > > > > > > > The following script is one I use ... though it could be > optimized to > > just download the RPMs and use createrepo to recreate the metadata. > > > > The script I use is as follows: > > #!/bin/sh > > # > > # mirror-centos.sh - Mirror CentOS Linux Updates # > > > > # Variables > > MIRROR="mirror.cs.wisc.edu" > > WBDIR="pub/mirrors/linux/caosity.org/centos" > > VERSIONS="4" > > ARCHS="SRPMS i386 x86_64" > > WBUPDATES="/home/ftp/pub/centos" > > PROXY="http://firewall.company.com:8080/" > > > > # Limit Transfer Rate to 10K bytes per second MAXRATE="10k" > > > > # Do the mirror > > for d in $VERSIONS; do > > for y in $ARCHS; do > > cd $WBUPDATES > > ## env http_proxy=$PROXY \ > > wget --non-verbose --no-host-directories --cut-dirs=8 --mirror \ > > --passive-ftp --limit-rate=$MAXRATE \ > > --directory-prefix=$WBUPDATES/$d/updates/$y \ > > ftp://$MIRROR/$WBDIR/$d/updates/$y > > ##--output-file=/tmp/mirror-centos.log > > > > # the RPMS should be checked for valid sigs, not ready for that > > yet > > ##rpm --checksig $WBUPDATES/$d/updates/$y/*.rpm | grep 'NOT OK' > > done > > done > > > > > > # Done > > exit > > > > _______________________________________________ > > CentOS mailing list > > CentOS(a)centos.org > > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > > > -- > > This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by > > MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. > > > > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous > content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS(a)centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

2 1

CentOS 4.0 -> 4.1 update failing
by Aleksandar Milivojevic 21 Jun '05

21 Jun '05

I've updated CentOS 4.0 to 4.1 on several machines (some desktops, some servers). However on my laptop, update is failing with following error just after headers are downloaded: --> Running transaction check --> Processing Dependency: glibc-common = 2.3.4-2 for package: glibc --> Finished Dependency Resolution Error: Missing Dependency: glibc-common = 2.3.4-2 is needed by package glibc My CentOS.repo is a standard one, as distributed with CentOS. I don't have any additional repos defined on my laptop. I attempted to clear yum cache (rm -rf /var/cache/yum/*). Rerun yum update, and got the same error again. Looking at the /var/cache/yum/base/headers, I see that yum downloaded headers for gblic-common, glibc-devel, and glibc-headers, but not for glibc. Seems as if yum did not considered base glibc package to be due for update. Running rpm -q glibc, shows that currently installed version of glibc is 2.3.4-2 (and all the other currently installed glibc packages are at the same version level). I don't remember doing anything fancy on that laptop that could have triggered this problem. Basically, it was normal install (desktop+devel packages mostly), and after that it was regulary updated from cron. Of course, as a workaround I could download glibc and related packages and update it by hand, and than rerun yum update to get all other updates from 4.1. But, I though it would be more fun if anybody could give me hint or two why yum failed to update this particular system.

4 9

RE: [CentOS] script to make a CentOS 4.0 respository updates server...
by Mark A. Lewis 21 Jun '05

21 Jun '05

Shouldn't we be using rsync instead of wget? > -----Original Message----- > From: centos-bounces(a)centos.org > [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Paul > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 8:37 PM > To: CentOS mailing list > Subject: Re: [CentOS] script to make a CentOS 4.0 respository > updates server... > > On Mon, 2005-06-20 at 14:14 -0500, israel.garcia(a)cimex.com.cu wrote: > > List, I have a CentOS 4.0 server in my intranet which will > serves as a > > CentOS repository updates, so I need a script to do that job, I can > > not use RSYNC. I just want to download CentOS 4.0 updates > every night. > > > > Can you help me? > > > > Regards, > > Israel > > > > The following script is one I use ... though it could be > optimized to just download the RPMs and use createrepo to > recreate the metadata. > > The script I use is as follows: > #!/bin/sh > # > # mirror-centos.sh - Mirror CentOS Linux Updates # > > # Variables > MIRROR="mirror.cs.wisc.edu" > WBDIR="pub/mirrors/linux/caosity.org/centos" > VERSIONS="4" > ARCHS="SRPMS i386 x86_64" > WBUPDATES="/home/ftp/pub/centos" > PROXY="http://firewall.company.com:8080/" > > # Limit Transfer Rate to 10K bytes per second MAXRATE="10k" > > # Do the mirror > for d in $VERSIONS; do > for y in $ARCHS; do > cd $WBUPDATES > ## env http_proxy=$PROXY \ > wget --non-verbose --no-host-directories --cut-dirs=8 --mirror \ > --passive-ftp --limit-rate=$MAXRATE \ > --directory-prefix=$WBUPDATES/$d/updates/$y \ > ftp://$MIRROR/$WBDIR/$d/updates/$y > ##--output-file=/tmp/mirror-centos.log > > # the RPMS should be checked for valid sigs, not ready > for that yet > ##rpm --checksig $WBUPDATES/$d/updates/$y/*.rpm | grep 'NOT OK' > done > done > > > # Done > exit > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS(a)centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous > content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. > > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

1 0

script to make a CentOS 4.0 respository updates server...
by israel.garcia＠cimex.com.cu 21 Jun '05

21 Jun '05

List, I have a CentOS 4.0 server in my intranet which will serves as a CentOS repository updates, so I need a script to do that job, I can not use RSYNC. I just want to download CentOS 4.0 updates every night. Can you help me? Regards, Israel

3 2

3.x ->3.5 update?
by Les Mikesell 20 Jun '05

20 Jun '05

On my Centos 3.4 boxes that were up to date a day or two ago, yum wants to update just about everything today. Is that normal? -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell(a)gmail.com

3 5

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 4.0 -> 4.1 update failing
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 20 Jun '05

20 Jun '05

From: Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)mattdm.org> > I think it goes something like this: "Bu.... bigger number... bigger > number faster! Want bigger number!" :) Never confuse marketing with actual ISA compatibility and optimization. Consider an i586 ISA target (--march=i586) or ISA optimization (--mopt=i586) a _de-optimization_ for i686 ISA compatible processors. And that include's Intel's own Pentium Pro/II, III/M, 4, etc... Just because it's higher doesn't necessarily mean better. Heck, Intel is going back to the P3 core because the P4 core isn't scaling, and it was a really quick hack that has poor ALU and FPU performance MHz for MHz compared to the PPro-P3 design. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

1 0

PenDrive still don't mount
by Dominik Składanowski 20 Jun '05

20 Jun '05

Hi. Few days ago I wrote about this problem (http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2005-June/007086.html) Now, after upgrade I have CentOS 4.1 and problem still exist. Regards. -- ____________________________________________________________________ D o m i n i k S k ł a d a n o w s k i

3 8

acpi_power_off called
by Fatih Ölçer 20 Jun '05

20 Jun '05

i cannot shutdown the computer. i get "acpi_power_off called" message. thanks.

3 2

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 4.0 -> 4.1 update failing
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 20 Jun '05

20 Jun '05

From: Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists(a)hughesjr.com> > RedHat doesn't support i586 support at all with CentOS-4 ... not via the > kernel or glibc. CentOS (starting with version 3.3) built an i586 kernel. > CentOS-4 continued this support. > One way to support this would be to use the i386 version. Seems like what > RH recommended on the upstream bug I submitted. I'm sure, based on my prior conversation with Cox, that Red Hat really has absolutely _no_ interest in supporting i586 out of sheer marketshare. It's either i486 (i386) or i686 for them. Unlike i486 and i686, i586 is a _specific_ (and partially buggy**) product -- namely original Pentium and Pentium MMX products and _no_ other. All subsequent Intel products (Pentium Pro on-ward) have been i686. And _all_ clones, cores, etc... have either been i486 or i686 ISA compatible. [ **NOTE: I'm not talking about the FPU bug. That was minor compared to many of its other bugs and, even worse, some real design flaws in the ALU and control. ] -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

2 1

laptop screen saver failing
by Jerry Geis 20 Jun '05

20 Jun '05

My dell 8200 has centos 4.1 installed. Everything works great except the X screen saver. when it kicks in my screen goes WHITE and not what ever the selection is for the screen saver (star field, blank screen, etc..) When I do Applications, preferences, screen saver it says "The XScreenSaver daemon doesnt seem to be running on display 0:0? Launch it now?" Cancel/ Ok After that it works. What is not set correctly. Thanks, Jerry

1 0

4.1 x86_64 doesn't contain a mkbootdisk rpm
by Ceg Ryan 20 Jun '05

20 Jun '05

4.1 x86_64 doesn't contain a mkbootdisk rpm Then, How do I make a bootdisk easily ? (I know how to use grub to make the bootdisk.) But any other easier method ? Thx !

3 3

is there a 3.5 dvd torrent
by Robin Mordasiewicz 20 Jun '05

20 Jun '05

I cannot seem to find the 3.5 dvd torrent. Does anyone know where this is. --

5 5

Re: i486 and i686 are the majority ISAs for x86 -- WAS: CentOS 4.0 -> 4.1 update failing
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 20 Jun '05

20 Jun '05

From: alex(a)milivojevic.org > At various points in time Red Hat made some somewhat conflicting > decisions. The first was that Red Hat distributions must have NPTL. > For NPTL support, there are two components of system where it is > implemented, kernel and glibc. Back then glibc supported NPTL only > for i686. NPTL support was later backported to i586 and i486. Also remember that sometimes someone has to adopt something before the issues are well known and accommodated. More often than not, this is Red Hat. > Kernel should be fine with i486 and newer. There will never be > i386 support for NPTL, since i386 lacks some assembly instructions > needed to implement it effectively (NPTL i386 system would be > unusably slow). Exactly. Today, I don't expect Linux to run on anything but an i486 ISA or higher. The TLB and other augmentations of the i386 ISA are huge upswings in performance. I'm not talking about Intel- specific product additions (cache, FPU, etc...), but the actual ISA an features like the TLB. Pretty much everyone since the mid-'90s has been producing a i486 compatible ISA, including pretty much every embedded product. The i586 is _only_ for _genuine_ Pentium/Pentium MMX. It should _never_ be used on anything else -- and that includes the Pentium Pro on-ward, which are i686 ISA. The i686 ISA and designs fix a massive amount of serious design errors made in both the Pentium ALU itself as well as considerations in its i586 ISA. To be fair to Intel, it was their first superscalar design. But at the same time, NexGen was able to pull off an even better, superscalar ALU, and much of Intel's "design assistance" came indirectly from joining Digital on the Alpha chip briefly. i486 ISA Compatible Architectures - AMD: 486, 586, K5 (both original and Nx586+FPU), SCLan - Cyrix: 5x86, 6x86, M1 - IDT/Centaur: WinChip (just the original?) - SGS-Thompson: Nearly all cores (except very latest) i686 ISA Compatible Architectures - AMD: K6, Athlon, Athlon64/Opteron - Cyrix/NS: M2, Geode - IDT/Centaur: WinChip2+ (or WinChip4+?) - SGS-Thompson: Latest cores are i686? - ViA: C3 The only major processor I know that was only i386 ISA compatible, but had Pentium-like features (as well as its own idea of a TLB) was the original NexGen Nx586. AFAIK, the rev of the Nx586 with a non-pipelined FPU was fully i486 ISA comaptible, and became AMD's K5 design at higher ratings (120+?). Either that, or it was AMD's changes for the K5 that made it i486 compatible (and the K6 was a rev to make it fully i686 compatible). i486 cores were still popular until very recently. National Semi has been liberal in its licensing of the M2/Geode cores, which are i686 ISA compatible. I believe SGS-Thompson how has their own core offering that is i686. Almost everything else out there is based on these two -- and even AMD has gone Geode and deprecated its SCLan for embedded PC duties. > Then, Red Hat dropped i386 kernels, and continued to support i586 > and i686 kernels only. However on the glibc side, i386 and i686 > builds were used. This broke things badly in Fedora Core 2 for i586 > machines for some packages that used Berkely DB library (most > notably, Cyrus IMAPD was the most problematic package). I'm sure Red Hat's rationale was that the fact that i586 architectures are _very_rare_ now -- the original Pentium and Pentium MMX _only_. Using i586 ISA (especially i586 optimizations) on i686 is _detrimental_ to performance -- even Intel's own. I know most people don't know this, but it's a very well known fact among developers. > Now, I'm not sure if this part is urban legend or reality. Apperently they > "fixed" it in Fedora Core 3. The fix was not i586 version of glibc (which > would be logical, glibc is one of the few rare packages that might actually > benefit from i586 instruction set, But _only_ on _true_ Pentium and Pentium MMX. On a K6, M2, Pentum Pro and latter revisions, you want to use i686, _not_ i586. Trust me on this, there are a lot of "hacks" to i586 code because of the massive bugs in its superscalar ALU. One of the reasons for MMX was actually to introduce instructions to work around the design flaws (hence why 45 of the 47 instructs of MMX are integer related -- sometimes using the single FPU pipe instead of the dual-ALU pipe for operations that should normally be done by the ALU). > if nothing else than because of mandatory NPTL support for Red Hat > distributions). What they did was to build i386 version of glibc with > NPTL part using i486 instructions (at that point in time, glibc folks > have already backported NPTL to i486 and i586). I would personally wish Red Hat, and the rest of the Linux community, would just call the packages "i486" when you need an i486 ISA. But I'm sure that would break a lot of package managers. But I would have still done it as of either Red Hat Linux 8.0 or Fedora Core 2. Red Hat has essentially been building i486 ISA with i686 optimizations (but not i686 ISA) as standard years ago (RHL8? 7.3?). I know they flirted (adopted?) P4 optimizations since Athlon seems to do well with them too. > Now, *if* i586 is supported architecture for distribution (are they > shipping i586 kernel? what release notes for distro say?), then this > should be considered as a bug. Red Hat _avoided_ ever shipping an i586 ISA distro, let alone I do _not_ think they _ever_ optimized for i586 -- other than a few release kernels. i586 is _only_ good for Pentium / Pentium MMX from a performance standpoint. > What might be checked first is if FC3 NPTL fix for i386 glibc is reallity? > Is it included with RHEL4 glibc? It would surprise me if anyone put in the effort to build a release- quality set of NPTL patches for i386. i486 or higher has really been the realm of even the embedded x86 core since the mid-'90s, and the i686 since the turn of the millenium. Hence why it's really not worth Red Hat's bother to ship anything but i686 ISA, because people who subscribe to RHEL are typically running mid-to-late '90s hardware on-ward. I would almost argue they should adopt the same attitude for Fedora Core, although SPEC files in FC should _always_ be capable of building at least i486. Supporting the i386 at this point is just not worth it. Even Alan Cox pointed this out to me when I questioned the move to i486 years ago, that even embedded x86 cores have been i486 for a long, long time and the "drop" in performance due to lacking instructions for addressing, TLB, etc... in the i386 ISA just make it a poor solution in general. From: alex(a)milivojevic.org > %ifarch %{nptlarches} > %define enablekernelnptl 2.4.20 > %ifarch i386 > %define nptl_target_cpu i486 > %define tls_subdir tls/i486 > %else > %define nptl_target_cpu %{_target_cpu} > %define tls_subdir tls > %endif > %endif > So, I'd say just compile it for i386, and it should work correctly. It'll use > i486 instructions for NPTL support. Some testing to see if NPTL is really > working might be needed. That's apperently the way Red Hat is doing it, so > CentOS should follow. If you watch the build of nearly all packages -- especially the kernel and GLibC -- when targetting the i386, you'll see "--march=486" which is _clearly_ requiring a i486 ISA. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

1 0

Help rebuilding kernel get mount error on reboot
by Jerry Geis 20 Jun '05

20 Jun '05

I am attempting to recompile the kernel with the following steps. Install kernel-sourcecode rpm cd /usr/src/linux-2.6.9-11.EL cp /boot/config-2.6.9-11.EL .config make menuconfig Device Drivers -> Character Devices -> Serial Drivers change Max number of non legacy 8250_NR_UARTS to 36 make bzImage make modules_install make install Then after rebooting and selecting my -custom image from the above compile "mount: error 19 mounting ext3" "mount: error 2 mounting none" Then the machine stops of source. What happended? How do I get my custom kernel to boot. Jerry

4 14

OT raid controller
by John Newbigin 20 Jun '05

20 Jun '05

Sorry for an OT post, but given the recent discussions here re raid, I was wondering if anyone had any info on the ITE 8212 RAID controller (GigaRAID) This is a PATA HW RAID as found on the GigaByte GA-8I915P-PRO motherboard. (I can see an IC on the board labeled GigaRAID. Their manual claims that is has it's own CPU). I am not using it because I have SATA, but I am still curious about it's HW v SW raid ability and general linux support. They do provide a linux driver but the install instructions refer to /dev/had (obviously a typo so I don't think it is well tested or supported). I have tried google, but most references are to questions, now answers :( John. -- John Newbigin Computer Systems Officer Faculty of Information and Communication Technologies Swinburne University of Technology Melbourne, Australia http://www.ict.swin.edu.au/staff/jnewbigin

3 5

Re: [CentOS] Yum repository info
by Paul Vandenberg 19 Jun '05

19 Jun '05

Message: 4 Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:41:56 -0400 From: Phil Savoie <psavoie1783(a)rogers.com> Subject: [CentOS] Yum repository info To: CentOS(a)centos.org Message-ID: <200506180841.56114.psavoie1783(a)rogers.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi All Would like to know where I could find repo info to be able to install frozen-bubble and/or supertux please. Thanks in advance, Phil ******************************************************************************************* I would just use the FC3 repos. They are binary compatible with CentOS 4 (RHEL 4). Go to http://dag.wieers.com

2 1

cannot kickstart after buying new SMC switch
by Robin Mordasiewicz 19 Jun '05

19 Jun '05

For some reason I cannot kickstart via pxe after installing a new SMC 48Port GigE switch. I swapped out an old hub to test and kickstarting still works with the old hub. Does anyone have any suggestions, --

2 2

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss