I haven't managed to get hold of any DVD-R media, and the machine I particularly want to install on seems not to be able to see double- sided (which I do have). (It's not exactly a new PC.)
So I can't get 6.0 onto it in the usual way. But I can wait till 6.1 comes out; it is possible to predict yet whether it will squeeze in under the DVD+R limit?
Have you thought about installing it from the network? Just burn a net install.iso, boot off from there, and at the network install prompt, enter path one of the mirrors.
After that, you are set.
On Dec 3, 2011, at 3:20 PM, Beartooth wrote:
I haven't managed to get hold of any DVD-R media, and the machine I particularly want to install on seems not to be able to see double- sided (which I do have). (It's not exactly a new PC.)
So I can't get 6.0 onto it in the usual way. But I can wait till 6.1 comes out; it is possible to predict yet whether it will squeeze in under the DVD+R limit?
-- Beartooth Staffwright, Not Quite Clueless Power User I have precious (very precious!) little idea where up is.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
At 12:32 PM 12/3/2011, you wrote:
Have you thought about installing it from the network? Just burn a net install.iso, boot off from there, and at the network install prompt, enter path one of the mirrors.
After that, you are set.
On Dec 3, 2011, at 3:20 PM, Beartooth wrote:
I haven't managed to get hold of any DVD-R media, and the machineI particularly want to install on seems not to be able to see double- sided (which I do have). (It's not exactly a new PC.)
So I can't get 6.0 onto it in the usual way. But I can wait till6.1 comes out; it is possible to predict yet whether it will squeeze in under the DVD+R limit?
--
With 6.0, I had to use the Net-Install. Unfortunately, I had to do it about 5 times because of errors I made, plus problems that existed between ZFS and Centos. Each time I did it, I waited the needed hours for each download. Fortunately, my ISP doesn't limit by transfer quantity (unlike ATT and Comcast), so I got it completed.
I might suggest that the packaging struggle to fit into both a DVD+R and DVD-R, by reducing the number of packages included in the DVD. For a starter, it might be possible to save some space (but only one of you experts might know if it's enough) by separating the language support and creating two "flavors" -- one with the non-Asian languages, and one with the Asian languages plus the "primary" European languages (English, French, German and a few others).
Alternately, by packaging it on two DVDs (the way we used to do it with multiple CD's).
David
On 12/03/11 12:40 PM, david wrote:
With 6.0, I had to use the Net-Install. Unfortunately, I had to do it about 5 times because of errors I made, plus problems that existed between ZFS and Centos. Each time I did it, I waited the needed hours for each download. Fortunately, my ISP doesn't limit by transfer quantity (unlike ATT and Comcast), so I got it completed.
copy the ISO contents to a local http server, point at that.
Vreme: 12/03/2011 09:48 PM, John R Pierce piše:
On 12/03/11 12:40 PM, david wrote:
With 6.0, I had to use the Net-Install. Unfortunately, I had to do it about 5 times because of errors I made, plus problems that existed between ZFS and Centos. Each time I did it, I waited the needed hours for each download. Fortunately, my ISP doesn't limit by transfer quantity (unlike ATT and Comcast), so I got it completed.
copy the ISO contents to a local http server, point at that.
There is also option to install from LiveDVD, and then just install the missing packages.
On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 22:29:23 +0100, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
copy the ISO contents to a local http server, point at that.
There is also option to install from LiveDVD, and then just install the missing packages.
I don't have that kind of access to any http server. But mighty few of the North American mirrors have either live media or netinstall ones, unless they call them something I don't recognize, or list them in places I don't think to look. Anyone have a direct URL handy?
Here is one for the net install:
http://www.gtlib.gatech.edu/pub/centos/6.0/isos/x86_64/CentOS-6.0-x86_64-net...
And for the live media:
http://www.gtlib.gatech.edu/pub/centos/6.0/isos/x86_64/CentOS-6.0-x86_64-Liv...
Alternatively, there is always bit torrent.
On Dec 3, 2011, at 5:11 PM, Beartooth wrote:
On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 22:29:23 +0100, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
copy the ISO contents to a local http server, point at that.
There is also option to install from LiveDVD, and then just install the missing packages.
I don't have that kind of access to any http server. But mighty few of the North American mirrors have either live media or netinstall ones, unless they call them something I don't recognize, or list them in places I don't think to look. Anyone have a direct URL handy?
-- Beartooth Staffwright, Not Quite Clueless Power User I have precious (very precious!) little idea where up is.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 3/12/11 22:13, "RILINDO FOSTER" rilindo@me.com wrote:
Here is one for the net install:
http://www.gtlib.gatech.edu/pub/centos/6.0/isos/x86_64/CentOS-6.0-x86_64-net... stall.iso
And for the live media:
http://www.gtlib.gatech.edu/pub/centos/6.0/isos/x86_64/CentOS-6.0-x86_64-Liv... D.iso
Has anybody got a link for a i386 LiveCD for 5.7? I've looked everywhere but to no avail.
Cheers,
Phil...
http://www.gtlib.gatech.edu/pub/centos/6.0/isos/i386/CentOS-6.0-i386-LiveDVD...
http://www.gtlib.gatech.edu/pub/centos/6.0/isos/i386/CentOS-6.0-i386-netinst... On Dec 4, 2011, at 5:52 AM, Phil Dobbin wrote:
On 3/12/11 22:13, "RILINDO FOSTER" rilindo@me.com wrote:
Here is one for the net install:
http://www.gtlib.gatech.edu/pub/centos/6.0/isos/x86_64/CentOS-6.0-x86_64-net... stall.iso
And for the live media:
http://www.gtlib.gatech.edu/pub/centos/6.0/isos/x86_64/CentOS-6.0-x86_64-Liv... D.iso
Has anybody got a link for a i386 LiveCD for 5.7? I've looked everywhere but to no avail.
Cheers,
Phil...
-- Nothing to see here... move along, move along
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 4/12/11 17:24, "RILINDO FOSTER" rilindo@me.com wrote:
http://www.gtlib.gatech.edu/pub/centos/6.0/isos/i386/CentOS-6.0-i386-LiveDVD... so
http://www.gtlib.gatech.edu/pub/centos/6.0/isos/i386/CentOS-6.0-i386-netinst... l.iso
Thanks for that but I'm actually looking for a Live CD of i386 CentOS 5.7. CentOS 6 won't run on my machine whereas 5.7 will.
Cheers,
Phil...
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Phil Dobbin phildobbin@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/12/11 17:24, "RILINDO FOSTER" rilindo@me.com wrote:
http://www.gtlib.gatech.edu/pub/centos/6.0/isos/i386/CentOS-6.0-i386-LiveDVD... so
http://www.gtlib.gatech.edu/pub/centos/6.0/isos/i386/CentOS-6.0-i386-netinst... l.iso
Thanks for that but I'm actually looking for a Live CD of i386 CentOS 5.7. CentOS 6 won't run on my machine whereas 5.7 will.
I don't found 5.7 but there is 5.6 LiveCD for example here:
http://ftp.riken.jp/Linux/centos/5.6/isos/i386/
and here
http://mirror.chpc.utah.edu/pub/centos/5.6/isos/i386/
Search for "CentOS-5.6-i386-LiveCD.iso" in google for other mirrors.
Bye, a
On 4/12/11 23:30, "Karanbir Singh" mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
On 12/04/2011 06:21 PM, Phil Dobbin wrote:
CentOS 6 won't run on my machine whereas 5.7 will.
Why is that ?
By co-incidence, as Beartooth posted earlier, I also tried to install CentOS 6 on a ThinkPad but it wouldn't take. I used to have a copy of a CentOS 5.7 Live CD & that worked O.K. on an old Pentium IV i386 so I'm hoping it'll work on the ThinkPad. Odd really. The ThinkPad has twice the RAM of the Pentium & they're great laptops...
Cheers,
Phil...
On 12/05/2011 12:33 AM, Phil Dobbin wrote:
By co-incidence, as Beartooth posted earlier, I also tried to install CentOS 6 on a ThinkPad but it wouldn't take. I used to have a copy of a CentOS 5.7 Live CD & that worked O.K. on an old Pentium IV i386 so I'm hoping it'll work on the ThinkPad. Odd really. The ThinkPad has twice the RAM of the Pentium & they're great laptops...
ah ok.
well, you cant install to disk from the CentOS-5 LiveMedia.. So you may as well grab the CD or DVD and install it from there.
Also, down to requests : we didnt build a 5.7 LiveCD. If you, or anyone else, wants to help make that happen you are welcome to.
- KB
On 5/12/11 00:41, "Karanbir Singh" mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
On 12/05/2011 12:33 AM, Phil Dobbin wrote:
By co-incidence, as Beartooth posted earlier, I also tried to install CentOS 6 on a ThinkPad but it wouldn't take. I used to have a copy of a CentOS 5.7 Live CD & that worked O.K. on an old Pentium IV i386 so I'm hoping it'll work on the ThinkPad. Odd really. The ThinkPad has twice the RAM of the Pentium & they're great laptops...
ah ok.
well, you cant install to disk from the CentOS-5 LiveMedia.. So you may as well grab the CD or DVD and install it from there.
Also, down to requests : we didnt build a 5.7 LiveCD. If you, or anyone else, wants to help make that happen you are welcome to.
Ah. My memory must be playing tricks on me. It must've been 5.6.
I've already got the 5.7 full DVD. I just wanted to run a Live CD to see if it was viable to go ahead & install.
Thanks, Karanbir.
Cheers,
Phil...
Vreme: 12/05/2011 01:33 AM, Phil Dobbin piše:
By co-incidence, as Beartooth posted earlier, I also tried to install CentOS 6 on a ThinkPad but it wouldn't take. I used to have a copy of a CentOS 5.7 Live CD& that worked O.K. on an old Pentium IV i386 so I'm hoping it'll work on the ThinkPad. Odd really. The ThinkPad has twice the RAM of the Pentium& they're great laptops...
What does "it wouldn't take" means? Can you give us some better idea? details. Could it be just a graphic mode? Did you try to change kernel parameters? Was there any error shown?
What were exact models involved so we can see hardware involved?
On 5/12/11 10:53, "Ljubomir Ljubojevic" office@plnet.rs wrote:
What does "it wouldn't take" means? Can you give us some better idea? details. Could it be just a graphic mode? Did you try to change kernel parameters? Was there any error shown?
What were exact models involved so we can see hardware involved?
The exact details were that I loaded the CentOS 6 Live CD & when it finally came to the desktop there were no menus, no trackpad interaction & no input facilities at all. Had to shut down via the power button.
After that I decided to use 5.6 or 5.7 because I knew they worked. I didn't go any further on troubleshooting the issue with v.6 because I'm on a tight schedule at the moment work-wise. I'm using for CentOS a Lenovo IBM ThinkPad T42 1.7 GHz i386 Centrino with 1GB of RAM & a 40GB hard drive.
Cheers,
Phil...
On 12/05/2011 09:08 AM, Phil Dobbin wrote:
On 5/12/11 10:53, "Ljubomir Ljubojevic" office@plnet.rs wrote:
What does "it wouldn't take" means? Can you give us some better idea? details. Could it be just a graphic mode? Did you try to change kernel parameters? Was there any error shown?
What were exact models involved so we can see hardware involved?
The exact details were that I loaded the CentOS 6 Live CD & when it finally came to the desktop there were no menus, no trackpad interaction & no input facilities at all. Had to shut down via the power button.
After that I decided to use 5.6 or 5.7 because I knew they worked. I didn't go any further on troubleshooting the issue with v.6 because I'm on a tight schedule at the moment work-wise. I'm using for CentOS a Lenovo IBM ThinkPad T42 1.7 GHz i386 Centrino with 1GB of RAM & a 40GB hard drive.
I think that if you yum install the CR repo, it will likely work OK on the Thinkpad ... at least one of our devels uses a think pad and it "works for him". Though, I do not know the exact thinkpad version he has.
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 11:53:29 +0100, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Vreme: 12/05/2011 01:33 AM, Phil Dobbin piše:
By co-incidence, as Beartooth posted earlier, I also tried to install CentOS 6 on a ThinkPad but it wouldn't take. I used to have a copy of a CentOS 5.7 Live CD& that worked O.K. on an old Pentium IV i386 so I'm hoping it'll work on the ThinkPad. Odd really. The ThinkPad has twice the RAM of the Pentium& they're great laptops...
What does "it wouldn't take" means? Can you give us some better idea? details. Could it be just a graphic mode? Did you try to change kernel parameters? Was there any error shown?
What were exact models involved so we can see hardware involved?
I have news that may be relevant. After I wiped my refurbished IBM T42 Thinkpad with DBAN, I tried the live DVD+R for CentOS 6.0 that had worked on my old PC. It failed yet again -- but this time the error message is different.
It says "This kernel requires the following features not present on the CPU: pae Unable to boot -- please use a kernel appropriate for your CPU."
I don't even know how to tell what kernel a prospective download has. I do know that some of my other PCs list kernels with and without "PAE" in the grub display.
On 12/05/2011 04:52 PM, Beartooth wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 11:53:29 +0100, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Vreme: 12/05/2011 01:33 AM, Phil Dobbin piše:
By co-incidence, as Beartooth posted earlier, I also tried to install CentOS 6 on a ThinkPad but it wouldn't take. I used to have a copy of a CentOS 5.7 Live CD& that worked O.K. on an old Pentium IV i386 so I'm hoping it'll work on the ThinkPad. Odd really. The ThinkPad has twice the RAM of the Pentium& they're great laptops...
What does "it wouldn't take" means? Can you give us some better idea? details. Could it be just a graphic mode? Did you try to change kernel parameters? Was there any error shown?
What were exact models involved so we can see hardware involved?
I have news that may be relevant. After I wiped my refurbished IBM T42 Thinkpad with DBAN, I tried the live DVD+R for CentOS 6.0 that had worked on my old PC. It failed yet again -- but this time the error message is different.
It says "This kernel requires the following features not present on the CPU: pae Unable to boot -- please use a kernel appropriate for your CPU."
I don't even know how to tell what kernel a prospective download has. I do know that some of my other PCs list kernels with and without "PAE" in the grub display.
PAE means physical address extension and allows 32bit cpus to make use of memory beyond the 4gb limit addressable with 32bit.
Centos/RHEL 6 doesn't support cpus without this as it's hard to come by a machine these days that doesn't have this extension.
So basically your hardware is too old to run Centos 6.
Regards, Dennis
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn dennisml@conversis.de wrote:
On 12/05/2011 04:52 PM, Beartooth wrote:
I don't even know how to tell what kernel a prospective download has. I do know that some of my other PCs list kernels with and without "PAE" in the grub display.
PAE means physical address extension and allows 32bit cpus to make use of memory beyond the 4gb limit addressable with 32bit.
Centos/RHEL 6 doesn't support cpus without this as it's hard to come by a machine these days that doesn't have this extension.
FYI, the ELRepo project now provides kernel-ml for EL6 [1] that includes a non-PAE kernel [2] (thanks to Alan Bartlett). However, one has to create an install disk/image with that kernel to perform the installation.
Akemi
[1] http://elrepo.org/tiki/kernel-ml [2] http://elrepo.org/linux/kernel/el6/i386/RPMS/
On Monday, December 05, 2011 11:11:45 AM Akemi Yagi wrote:
FYI, the ELRepo project now provides kernel-ml for EL6 [1] that includes a non-PAE kernel [2] (thanks to Alan Bartlett). However, one has to create an install disk/image with that kernel to perform the installation.
This is good; thanks for the pointer. Getting the install media built might be the only issue.
On Mon, 5 Dec 2011, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Monday, December 05, 2011 11:11:45 AM Akemi Yagi wrote:
FYI, the ELRepo project now provides kernel-ml for EL6 [1] that includes a non-PAE kernel [2] (thanks to Alan Bartlett). However, one has to create an install disk/image with that kernel to perform the installation.
This is good; thanks for the pointer. Getting the install media built might be the only issue.
I've been running 6.0 on my 1.1GHz Pentium M non-PAE laptop. I basically did an install using anaconda to install to a directory from within C5, and then installed a non-PAE kernel (kernel-2.6.32-71.7.1.el6.nonpae.i686), grubbed it up and that works nicely. As a one off that was easier than worrying about respinning the install media. It'll be documented on list exactly what I did, I installed that kernel 21st August 2011, so presumably I mailed about it shortly afterwards.
I have no objections to Redhat dropping support for hardware they're not interested in, old or new. It's entirely up to them, and I really doubt they're inconveniencing many customers with this decision.
jh
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:08 AM, John Hodrien J.H.Hodrien@leeds.ac.uk wrote:
On Mon, 5 Dec 2011, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Monday, December 05, 2011 11:11:45 AM Akemi Yagi wrote:
FYI, the ELRepo project now provides kernel-ml for EL6 [1] that includes a non-PAE kernel [2] (thanks to Alan Bartlett). However, one has to create an install disk/image with that kernel to perform the installation.
This is good; thanks for the pointer. Getting the install media built might be the only issue.
I've been running 6.0 on my 1.1GHz Pentium M non-PAE laptop. I basically did an install using anaconda to install to a directory from within C5, and then installed a non-PAE kernel (kernel-2.6.32-71.7.1.el6.nonpae.i686), grubbed it up and that works nicely. As a one off that was easier than worrying about respinning the install media. It'll be documented on list exactly what I did, I installed that kernel 21st August 2011, so presumably I mailed about it shortly afterwards.
Found it here:
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2011-August/116804.html
Vreme: 12/07/2011 10:40 AM, Akemi Yagi piše:
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:08 AM, John HodrienJ.H.Hodrien@leeds.ac.uk wrote:
On Mon, 5 Dec 2011, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Monday, December 05, 2011 11:11:45 AM Akemi Yagi wrote:
FYI, the ELRepo project now provides kernel-ml for EL6 [1] that includes a non-PAE kernel [2] (thanks to Alan Bartlett). However, one has to create an install disk/image with that kernel to perform the installation.
This is good; thanks for the pointer. Getting the install media built might be the only issue.
I've been running 6.0 on my 1.1GHz Pentium M non-PAE laptop. I basically did an install using anaconda to install to a directory from within C5, and then installed a non-PAE kernel (kernel-2.6.32-71.7.1.el6.nonpae.i686), grubbed it up and that works nicely. As a one off that was easier than worrying about respinning the install media. It'll be documented on list exactly what I did, I installed that kernel 21st August 2011, so presumably I mailed about it shortly afterwards.
Found it here:
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2011-August/116804.html
Akemi, there is src.rpm also: http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/lkundrak/kernel-nonpae/epel-6/SRPMS/kern...
How complicated and time consuming would it be to use it's spec file to build .nonpae.centosplus kernel for all published kernels?
On 12/07/2011 10:50 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2011-August/116804.html
Akemi, there is src.rpm also: http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/lkundrak/kernel-nonpae/epel-6/SRPMS/kern...
How complicated and time consuming would it be to use it's spec file to build .nonpae.centosplus kernel for all published kernels?
give it a shot, submit a patch - if it can be automated, I'll even add it to the regular buildsystem to build in parallel with the regular kernel.
- KB
Vreme: 12/07/2011 01:35 PM, Karanbir Singh piše:
On 12/07/2011 10:50 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2011-August/116804.html
Akemi, there is src.rpm also: http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/lkundrak/kernel-nonpae/epel-6/SRPMS/kern...
How complicated and time consuming would it be to use it's spec file to build .nonpae.centosplus kernel for all published kernels?
give it a shot, submit a patch - if it can be automated, I'll even add it to the regular buildsystem to build in parallel with the regular kernel.
I never ever played with kernel building, that is why I asked. If no one accept the challenge, I will.
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 17:03:12 +0100, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: [....]
PAE means physical address extension and allows 32bit cpus to make use of memory beyond the 4gb limit addressable with 32bit.
Centos/RHEL 6 doesn't support cpus without this as it's hard to come by a machine these days that doesn't have this extension.
So basically your hardware is too old to run Centos 6.
Aaarrghh! And also Rats! The T42 is my *newer* laptop. (I admit I seldom do much with either; but one or the other always lives in the guest room for the convenience of anyone who may be visiting without.) Sounds like I better go check whether Omega Linux is still current ....
Beartooth wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 11:53:29 +0100, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Vreme: 12/05/2011 01:33 AM, Phil Dobbin piše:
By co-incidence, as Beartooth posted earlier, I also tried to install CentOS 6 on a ThinkPad but it wouldn't take. I used to have a copy of a CentOS 5.7 Live CD& that worked O.K. on an old Pentium IV i386 so I'm hoping it'll work on the ThinkPad. Odd really. The ThinkPad has twice the RAM of the Pentium& they're great laptops...
<snip>
I have news that may be relevant. After I wiped my refurbished IBM T42 Thinkpad with DBAN, I tried the live DVD+R for CentOS 6.0 that had worked on my old PC. It failed yet again -- but this time the error message is different.
It says "This kernel requires the following features not present on the CPU: pae Unable to boot -- please use a kernel appropriate for your CPU."
Ok, so when grub tell you what it's going to boot, hit <e>, then choose the non-PAE kernel, and see what happens. Not sure why it installed a PAE kernel, if it can't boot it.... <snip> mark
On 12/05/11 8:17 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Ok, so when grub tell you what it's going to boot, hit<e>, then choose the non-PAE kernel, and see what happens. Not sure why it installed a PAE kernel, if it can't boot it....
I thought CentOS6 didn't come with a non-PAE kernel, more specifically, the standard 32bit kernel requires PAE even if it doesnt have PAE in its name.
c6 systems really should be 64bit native, anyways. 32bit is fading into history.
John R Pierce wrote:
On 12/05/11 8:17 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Ok, so when grub tell you what it's going to boot, hit<e>, then choose the non-PAE kernel, and see what happens. Not sure why it installed a PAE kernel, if it can't boot it....
I thought CentOS6 didn't come with a non-PAE kernel, more specifically, the standard 32bit kernel requires PAE even if it doesnt have PAE in its name.
I hadn't followed that development. *sigh*
c6 systems really should be 64bit native, anyways. 32bit is fading into history.
I guarantee that there'll be 32 bit systems for a minimum of 10 more years. Esp. in the current depression, everyone will hang onto what they have until the boxen die, or look to die. And then there's laptops....
mark
On 12/05/11 11:00 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
I guarantee that there'll be 32 bit systems for a minimum of 10 more years. Esp. in the current depression, everyone will hang onto what they have until the boxen die, or look to die. And then there's laptops....
then they should stick with older software.
On 5/12/11 19:11, "John R Pierce" pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
On 12/05/11 11:00 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
I guarantee that there'll be 32 bit systems for a minimum of 10 more years. Esp. in the current depression, everyone will hang onto what they have until the boxen die, or look to die. And then there's laptops....
then they should stick with older software.
Not really reflective of the spirit of open source software...
Cheers,
Phil...
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Phil Dobbin phildobbin@gmail.com wrote:
I guarantee that there'll be 32 bit systems for a minimum of 10 more years. Esp. in the current depression, everyone will hang onto what they have until the boxen die, or look to die. And then there's laptops....
then they should stick with older software.
Not really reflective of the spirit of open source software...
You mean you don't think there are enough current choices? Visit http://www.distrowatch.com... Or do you think they _all_ have to support every possible device?
On 12/05/11 11:47 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Phil Dobbinphildobbin@gmail.com wrote:
> I guarantee that there'll be 32 bit systems for a minimum of 10 more > years. Esp. in the current depression, everyone will hang onto what they > have until the boxen die, or look to die. And then there's laptops....
then they should stick with older software.
Not really reflective of the spirit of open source software...
You mean you don't think there are enough current choices? Visit http://www.distrowatch.com... Or do you think they_all_ have to support every possible device?
indeed, that was my point. its silly to expect the latest release of ENTERPRISE LINUX, a distribution clearly targeted at servers, to have to support every funky old box end users can throw at it.
CentOS6 works freekin' awesome on a HP DL180G6 with dual Xeon X5660's, 48GB ram, and a SAS raid10 of 20 x 15000 rpm 146GB drives.... Seeing over 6000 transactions/second sustained from postgresql's pgbench with sufficient threads and workload multipliers. My circa 2004 Dell Latitude D600 "Dothan" (Pentium-M) laptop? I wouldn't even bother to try.
On Monday, December 05, 2011 02:56:18 PM John R Pierce wrote:
indeed, that was my point. its silly to expect the latest release of ENTERPRISE LINUX, a distribution clearly targeted at servers, to have to support every funky old box end users can throw at it.
If EL6 is targeted at servers, why does upstream have not one but two desktop oriented SKU's? This 'EL is a server OS' meme is ludicrous, as EL6 is a fantastic desktop/workstation OS.
My circa 2004 Dell Latitude D600 "Dothan" (Pentium-M) laptop? I wouldn't even bother to try.
You know, I don't exactly agree with that. The D600 (and D610) are still relatively useful laptops that, with the right desktop environment, can perform quite well, especially with the 2.0GHz Pentium M and 2GB of RAM (which can be had). I would dare say that for most things a 2GHz Pentium M would perform nearly as well as a Core 2 Duo at the same clock with the same amount of RAM, and will outperform a P4 or Netburst Xeon at 3GHz. That is, in terms of single-threaded performance, that D600 with a 2GHz Pentium M will run comparably to a Dell Precision 650/670/690 with one single-core 3GHz Xeon, especially if the D600 has a 7200RPM drive and the good nVidia graphics.
Heh, if you want rid of that D600 I know a non-profit that will be glad to have you donate it....
Intel's not putting PAE in that era of Pentium M is one of those odd things; my older Dell Latitude C-series with a 1.8Ghz P4 can run the PAE kernel just fine, but the much faster D610 with the 2GHz Pentium M can't? Something odd with that picture.
On 12/05/11 12:34 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
Intel's not putting PAE in that era of Pentium M is one of those odd things; my older Dell Latitude C-series with a 1.8Ghz P4 can run the PAE kernel just fine, but the much faster D610 with the 2GHz Pentium M can't? Something odd with that picture.
the chipset doesn't support over 2GB ram. the Pentium-M was based on the Pentium-III core, which afaik didn't have PAE. /me shrugs. They added it back in for the Core family.
On Monday, December 05, 2011 03:48:12 PM John R Pierce wrote:
the chipset doesn't support over 2GB ram. the Pentium-M was based on the Pentium-III core, which afaik didn't have PAE. /me shrugs. They added it back in for the Core family.
That's the odd thing; PAE has been there since the Pentium Pro, so the P3 had it. It seems that all x86 processors since the PPro, except for the 400MHz FSB Pentium M's, have PAE.
Oddly, the 2.0GHz Dothan is documented as having PAE; it's only the 400MHz FSB (Banias) ones that are documented as having PAE disabled. The PAE feature apparently affects more than just the address space, at least according to the Pentium M Wikipedia article.
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu wrote:
My circa 2004 Dell Latitude D600 "Dothan" (Pentium-M) laptop? I wouldn't even bother to try.
You know, I don't exactly agree with that. The D600 (and D610) are still relatively useful laptops that, with the right desktop environment, can perform quite well, especially with the 2.0GHz Pentium M and 2GB of RAM (which can be had). I would dare say that for most things a 2GHz Pentium M would perform nearly as well as a Core 2 Duo at the same clock with the same amount of RAM, and will outperform a P4 or Netburst Xeon at 3GHz.
Ummm, no. I had a D610 and now have an already-aging D630 with a Core 2 Duo. There's a big difference, and of course the D630 can run VMware with 64-bit guests.
But back to the 'spirit of open source' - I thought that meant that if you didn't like it you could fix it yourself. And I thought someone had already done a non-PAE kernel or was working on it to make PXE-booted thin clients work. So if you want it bad enough it should be a matter of figuring out how to get it installed.
On 5/12/11 20:52, "Les Mikesell" lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
But back to the 'spirit of open source' - I thought that meant that if you didn't like it you could fix it yourself. And I thought someone had already done a non-PAE kernel or was working on it to make PXE-booted thin clients work. So if you want it bad enough it should be a matter of figuring out how to get it installed.
& I did mention way back at the start of this thread, could anybody supply a link to a Live CD of CentOS 5.6 so I could verify it would run on my machine because v.6 wouldn't which somebody kindly did & also because of a tight schedule at present, I couldn't explore any further options to make v.6 work OMM...
Just I was a bit surprised at the attitude of "if you haven't got/can't afford xyz just stick with what you've got". Not sure Linus Torvalds had that kind of thinking in mind when he approached this project. Maybe I'm wrong...
Cheers,
Phil.
On Dec 5, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Phil Dobbin wrote:
Just I was a bit surprised at the attitude of "if you haven't got/can't afford xyz just stick with what you've got". Not sure Linus Torvalds had that kind of thinking in mind when he approached this project. Maybe I'm wrong...
---- well, if you had a system with a IA, PPC or a 586 processor, you would have understood how that logic works out. In reality though, it's not that Linux itself excludes it, it's that the upstream vendor has decided THEY weren't going to support it. In the past, CentOS has had some custom kernels that supported features/processors that the upstream vendor didn't but I think that's a lot of work for them to maintain on their own and their enthusiasm diminished over time.
Craig
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Phil Dobbin phildobbin@gmail.com wrote:
Just I was a bit surprised at the attitude of "if you haven't got/can't afford xyz just stick with what you've got". Not sure Linus Torvalds had that kind of thinking in mind when he approached this project. Maybe I'm wrong...
Go back and look at what he actually released and what he said when he turned the project loose if you have any illusions that he thought what he shipped was going to run on everything. But this isn't about Linux - it is about 'Enterprise Linux' as shipped/maintained by a certain large company mostly concerned about customers paying for support.
On Monday, December 05, 2011 03:52:11 PM Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu wrote:
You know, I don't exactly agree with that. The D600 (and D610) are still relatively useful laptops that, with the right desktop environment, can perform quite well, especially with the 2.0GHz Pentium M and 2GB of RAM
Ummm, no. I had a D610 and now have an already-aging D630 with a Core 2 Duo. There's a big difference, and of course the D630 can run VMware with 64-bit guests.
I have benchmarked a Dell Inspiron 640m with a 2.0GHz Core2Duo with 2GB of RAM against a Dell Latitude D610 with a 2.0GHz Pentium M with 2GB of RAM, using the same performing hard drive (as the D610 uses PATA, and the 640m uses SATA, I had to settle for 'same performance' and not 'identical drives') with the exact same OS (I literally cloned the 100GB drive in the D610 to a 100GB in the 640m and ran the same image) and found minimal performance differences in terms of responsiveness in normal use, doing one thing at a time. It's only when doing multiple things, or doing multithreaded things, that the Core2Duo pulls away.
YMMV.
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu wrote:
You know, I don't exactly agree with that. The D600 (and D610) are still relatively useful laptops that, with the right desktop environment, can perform quite well, especially with the 2.0GHz Pentium M and 2GB of RAM
Ummm, no. I had a D610 and now have an already-aging D630 with a Core 2 Duo. There's a big difference, and of course the D630 can run VMware with 64-bit guests.
I have benchmarked a Dell Inspiron 640m with a 2.0GHz Core2Duo with 2GB of RAM against a Dell Latitude D610 with a 2.0GHz Pentium M with 2GB of RAM, using the same performing hard drive (as the D610 uses PATA, and the 640m uses SATA, I had to settle for 'same performance' and not 'identical drives') with the exact same OS (I literally cloned the 100GB drive in the D610 to a 100GB in the 640m and ran the same image) and found minimal performance differences in terms of responsiveness in normal use, doing one thing at a time. It's only when doing multiple things, or doing multithreaded things, that the Core2Duo pulls away.
OK, but who just runs a single process? And 2GB RAM is kind of minimal - I like lots of disk buffer. If you don't have things in cache, your 'responsiveness in normal use' is going to be dominated by disk waits.
On Monday, December 05, 2011 06:02:27 PM Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu wrote:
It's only when doing multiple things, or doing multithreaded things, that the Core2Duo pulls away.
OK, but who just runs a single process?
For the purposes of usability, effectively anyone who spends the day in Firefox. And there are a lot of people for whom that is the case.
And 2GB RAM is kind of minimal - I like lots of disk buffer.
What you like is irrelevant to the usefulness of 2GB of RAM to other people.
If you don't have things in cache, your 'responsiveness in normal use' is going to be dominated by disk waits.
None of which negates the gist of the message, that a 2.0GHz Pentium M (and even a slower one) is still a usable machine. Nothing more; nothing less.
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu wrote:
It's only when doing multiple things, or doing multithreaded things, that the Core2Duo pulls away.
OK, but who just runs a single process?
For the purposes of usability, effectively anyone who spends the day in Firefox. And there are a lot of people for whom that is the case.
Even there the tcp stack and filesystem operations should be mostly running on a different core.
And 2GB RAM is kind of minimal - I like lots of disk buffer.
What you like is irrelevant to the usefulness of 2GB of RAM to other people.
It is very relevant to the performance they experience.
If you don't have things in cache, your 'responsiveness in normal use' is going to be dominated by disk waits.
None of which negates the gist of the message, that a 2.0GHz Pentium M (and even a slower one) is still a usable machine. Nothing more; nothing less.
Nor my experience that a Core 2 Duo will save much human time and also is able to run virtual machines that the pentium M can't. And CentOS 5.x is still a usable OS, isn't it?
And 2GB RAM is kind of minimal - I like lots of disk buffer.
What you like is irrelevant to the usefulness of 2GB of RAM to other people.
Can you two stop your senseless arguing. We all already know none of you are going to back down. Just agree that you agree and be done with it.
Regular CentOS 6.x is not PAE enabled. There is kernel-ml in ElRepo that has non-PAE kernel enabled. It is 2.6.39-4, so it is not supported by upstream, but it will run CentOS Desktop version nicely.
I plan on releasing unofficial CentOS Desktop oriented LiveDVD with all the goodies like newest Firefox and ElRepo kernel modules for NIC's and wireless, and "upgrade" repository with missing or newer packages of Desktop applications in next week or two. I am sure I can produce unofficial LiveDVD with non-PAE kernel and so can others.
So CentOS will be unofficially coming to non-PAE CPU's soon I am sure, and who knows, it might become official CentOS project is maintainers show up.
Thank you for understanding us others on this mailing list.
On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 00:58 +0100, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
And 2GB RAM is kind of minimal - I like lots of disk buffer.
What you like is irrelevant to the usefulness of 2GB of RAM to other people.
Can you two stop your senseless arguing. We all already know none of you are going to back down. Just agree that you agree and be done with it.
---- sorry but I don't agree. They are 2 very knowledgeable Linux users that never resort to personal attacks and clearly there is something to be learned by reading. Of course the option is there to just delete them if you are uninterested. ----
Regular CentOS 6.x is not PAE enabled. There is kernel-ml in ElRepo that has non-PAE kernel enabled. It is 2.6.39-4, so it is not supported by upstream, but it will run CentOS Desktop version nicely.
---- I gather you have gone into full speculation mode since the only way you could install it on a computer that doesn't support PAE is to create a new installer disc (ie anaconda) uses this kernel throughout. Then there's the issue of installing an OS that depends upon a specific resource who remains engaged in the process to update. Sounds like a formula for a lot of frustration whose success will reward a relatively limited life. ----
I plan on releasing unofficial CentOS Desktop oriented LiveDVD with all the goodies like newest Firefox and ElRepo kernel modules for NIC's and wireless, and "upgrade" repository with missing or newer packages of Desktop applications in next week or two. I am sure I can produce unofficial LiveDVD with non-PAE kernel and so can others.
So CentOS will be unofficially coming to non-PAE CPU's soon I am sure, and who knows, it might become official CentOS project is maintainers show up.
Thank you for understanding us others on this mailing list.
---- good luck
Craig
On Monday, December 05, 2011 06:58:53 PM Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
I plan on releasing unofficial CentOS Desktop oriented LiveDVD with all the goodies like newest Firefox and ElRepo kernel modules for NIC's and wireless, and "upgrade" repository with missing or newer packages of Desktop applications in next week or two. I am sure I can produce unofficial LiveDVD with non-PAE kernel and so can others.
This sounds like a winner, Ljubomir. I'm assuming you'll announce it here, correct?
Vreme: 12/06/2011 03:58 PM, Lamar Owen piše:
On Monday, December 05, 2011 06:58:53 PM Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
I plan on releasing unofficial CentOS Desktop oriented LiveDVD with all the goodies like newest Firefox and ElRepo kernel modules for NIC's and wireless, and "upgrade" repository with missing or newer packages of Desktop applications in next week or two. I am sure I can produce unofficial LiveDVD with non-PAE kernel and so can others.
This sounds like a winner, Ljubomir. I'm assuming you'll announce it here, correct?
Yes, I will. I asked KB about using "CentDOS" name, and what would be necessary for CentOS project endorsement. When I get an answer from them I will proceed.
Repository is already on-line for quite some time, I filled it will all the packages I wanted/needed, and I used it already for several C6 PC's.
I already started slowly adding packages to the LiveDVD cfg file few days ago.
Phil Dobbin wrote:
On 5/12/11 19:11, "John R Pierce" pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
On 12/05/11 11:00 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
I guarantee that there'll be 32 bit systems for a minimum of 10 more years. Esp. in the current depression, everyone will hang onto what they have until the boxen die, or look to die. And then there's laptops....
then they should stick with older software.
Not really reflective of the spirit of open source software...
Nor of the whole spirit of Linux, IMO. I always tell folks how it runs on *everything*....
mark
On 12/05/2011 07:00 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
I thought CentOS6 didn't come with a non-PAE kernel, more specifically, the standard 32bit kernel requires PAE even if it doesnt have PAE in its name.
I hadn't followed that development. *sigh*
I believe that is true of CentOS-5 as well.
- KB
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 12/05/2011 07:00 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
I thought CentOS6 didn't come with a non-PAE kernel, more specifically, the standard 32bit kernel requires PAE even if it doesnt have PAE in its name.
I hadn't followed that development. *sigh*
I believe that is true of CentOS-5 as well.
As in the latest C5 kernels require PAE?
jh
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:03 AM, John Hodrien J.H.Hodrien@leeds.ac.uk wrote:
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 12/05/2011 07:00 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
I thought CentOS6 didn't come with a non-PAE kernel, more specifically, the standard 32bit kernel requires PAE even if it doesnt have PAE in its name.
I hadn't followed that development. *sigh*
I believe that is true of CentOS-5 as well.
As in the latest C5 kernels require PAE?
C5 kernels still come in two flavours, standard (kernel) and PAE (kernel-PAE).
Akemi
On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 17:13:56 -0500, RILINDO FOSTER wrote:
Here is one for the net install:
http://www.gtlib.gatech.edu/pub/centos/6.0/isos/x86_64/CentOS-6.0-
x86_64-netinstall.iso
And for the live media:
http://www.gtlib.gatech.edu/pub/centos/6.0/isos/x86_64/CentOS-6.0-
x86_64-LiveCD.iso
Oho! So *that's* how they file it. And I thought I knew my way around the Georgia Tech server -- many thanks!
I got it installed and updated on the PC, using the live DVD for 32-bit. I removed a lot of things with PackageKit that I never use, took it through a yum update, and started adding ones it lacked. But that's another post.
Then I tried to install on a T42 Thinkpad, in vain, even though it reacts normally to Fedora DVDs. So I burned a live CD -- and it wouldn't take that either. Now I'm running DBAN on it, which will at least prevent the current OS (Linux Mint, fwiw) from dominating. Stay tuned.
On 12/03/11 2:11 PM, Beartooth wrote:
I don't have that kind of access to any http server.
in a pinch, enable IIS on a windows system. its a bit funky, but it works just fine for this sort of thing. or any linux box, you could install httpd on. this is just for access on your local network, use the 'servers' ip address if you don't have local DNS... http://192.168.1.105/centos/6/os/x86_64 or whatever.
Hi John,
On 03.12.2011, at 23:25, John R Pierce wrote:
On 12/03/11 2:11 PM, Beartooth wrote:
I don't have that kind of access to any http server.
in a pinch, enable IIS on a windows system. its a bit funky, but it works just fine for this sort of thing. or any linux box, you could install httpd on.
... or any Mac OS X box, which come with httpd installed. That's what I do with my Xen installations.
Cheers,
Peter.
On 12/03/11 12:20 PM, Beartooth wrote:
I haven't managed to get hold of any DVD-R media, and the machine I particularly want to install on seems not to be able to see double- sided (which I do have). (It's not exactly a new PC.)
double SIDED? or do you mean double layer? I've never seen a double sided burnable, although they are moderately common in pre-pressed movies (typically widescreen anamorphic on one side, pan-n-scan on the other)
I second the emotion for the network install. or use the minimal, then add stuff with yum, thats what I do.
-
Akemi Yagi -
Artifex Maximus -
Beartooth -
Craig White -
Craig White -
david -
Dennis Jacobfeuerborn -
John Hodrien -
John R Pierce -
Johnny Hughes -
Karanbir Singh -
Lamar Owen -
Les Mikesell -
Ljubomir Ljubojevic -
m.roth＠5-cent.us -
Peter Eckel -
Phil Dobbin -
RILINDO FOSTER