Hello Everyone,
I'm running the x86_64 bit version of CentOS 4 on a dual AMD Opteron server. The graphics card is an ATI Radeon X300. At the moment, Xorg is configured to use the open source driver, radeon. The server itself is connected to a KVM switch, which has otherwise not caused any issues.
Recently, the virtual terminals have started to go blank and then not come back. What I mean by that is that the VTs from 1 to 7 do not display anything (the server is typically running in run level 5). I thought perhaps DPMS was on, but no amount of typing on the keyboard brings them back.
I then considered it was related to the vga=791 parameter I was passing to the kernel - there were many mtrr errors reported in /var/log/messages. However, removing that parameter hasn't fixed the problem.
Restarting GDM or changing the server's run levels doesn't work either. Only a reboot resolves the issue. (Hmmm...now that I think about it, removing the radeon module and adding it again might be equivalent to the reboot).
There's nothing in /var/log/messages or in the xorg log file to indicate a problem. All the tty processes are running normally.
I'm just wondering if anyone else has experienced this before. If so, is switching to the proprietary driver the only option? Is there anything else I can look at? I'm suspecting it's a driver issue, and so will shortly try the proprietary driver from ATI.
Thanks,
Ranbir
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 04:44:20PM -0500, Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote:
I'm running the x86_64 bit version of CentOS 4 on a dual AMD Opteron server. The graphics card is an ATI Radeon X300. At the moment, Xorg is configured to use the open source driver, radeon. The server itself is connected to a KVM switch, which has otherwise not caused any issues.
(...)
I'm just wondering if anyone else has experienced this before. If so, is switching to the proprietary driver the only option? Is there anything else I can look at? I'm suspecting it's a driver issue, and so will shortly try the proprietary driver from ATI.
ATI support on Xorg is very iffy at the moment. I have been having problems all over when I have any ATI based card.
I suppose it will get sorted out by 4.3. At least I hope it will.
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
On Tue, 2006-14-03 at 20:33 -0300, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
ATI support on Xorg is very iffy at the moment. I have been having problems all over when I have any ATI based card.
That sucks.
What's really irritating is that it was fine for several months, and then all of a sudden the screen started to blank out.
I suppose it will get sorted out by 4.3. At least I hope it will.
Hopefully. But, in the meantime, I'm going to switch to the vesa driver. I'm not concerned about 2D performance since it's a server - it's reliability that's important.
Thank you very much for replying. At least I have a better understanding of what's going on.
Regards,
Ranbir
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 10:06:53AM -0500, Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote:
On Tue, 2006-14-03 at 20:33 -0300, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
ATI support on Xorg is very iffy at the moment. I have been having problems all over when I have any ATI based card.
That sucks.
What's really irritating is that it was fine for several months, and then all of a sudden the screen started to blank out.
Yup. Worked without a problem on 4.1
I suppose it will get sorted out by 4.3. At least I hope it will.
Hopefully. But, in the meantime, I'm going to switch to the vesa driver. I'm not concerned about 2D performance since it's a server - it's reliability that's important.
Why do you need X on a server ? Just run it on runlevel 3 and be happy.
Thank you very much for replying. At least I have a better understanding of what's going on.
Yeah. We can all cry together now.
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote:
Hello Everyone,
I'm running the x86_64 bit version of CentOS 4 on a dual AMD Opteron server. The graphics card is an ATI Radeon X300. At the moment, Xorg is configured to use the open source driver, radeon. The server itself is connected to a KVM switch, which has otherwise not caused any issues.
CentOS 4.2 does NOT work with ATI! Period! not x86-64 and x86.. X is completely screwed up. I hope that this will be fixed with 4.3. I had to switch to an nVidia card that works perfectly.
This is not just CentOS, it's X. I had the same problem with Ubuntu, but SuSE worked perfectly without any problem, they have newer drivers.
I tried with the drivers from X and from ATI, same.
If you can live with it, you can edit Xorg.conf and change the driver to VESA, but it's ugly.
On Tue, 2006-14-03 at 16:51 -0800, centos@911networks.com wrote:
CentOS 4.2 does NOT work with ATI! Period! not x86-64 and x86.. X is completely screwed up. I hope that this will be fixed with 4.3. I had to switch to an nVidia card that works perfectly.
Yeah, that's what I'm discovering. I wish I had heard these reports earlier before slapping an ATI card in.
Switching to another card, such as one from nvidia, is an option of last resort.
This is not just CentOS, it's X. I had the same problem with Ubuntu, but SuSE worked perfectly without any problem, they have newer drivers.
Ok. Good to know.
I tried with the drivers from X and from ATI, same.
If you can live with it, you can edit Xorg.conf and change the driver to VESA, but it's ugly.
Yep, that's what I'm going to do. Degraded 2D performance isn't a problem. It's a server, so reliability is more important for me.
Thanks for replying.
Regards,
Ranbir
centos@911networks.com wrote:
CentOS 4.2 does NOT work with ATI! Period! not x86-64 and x86.. X is completely screwed up. I hope that this will be fixed with 4.3. I had to switch to an nVidia card that works perfectly.
Possible investigation path for y'all -- something like this happened in a recent Fedora update (which affected my laptop with ATI at home), it turned out to be the module-init-tools and udev or something like that. Not saying this is the same thing, but worth reading the bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179041
-te
Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote:
I'm just wondering if anyone else has experienced this before. If so, is switching to the proprietary driver the only option? Is there anything else I can look at? I'm suspecting it's a driver issue, and so will shortly try the proprietary driver from ATI.
I'm running X300 on one of my boxes, and it seems that my particular card runs OK. I don't think it's original ATI card, just uses the ATI chipset. Of course, there's no 3D acceleration (just 2D).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 08:58:55PM -0600, Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote:
Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote:
I'm just wondering if anyone else has experienced this before. If so, is switching to the proprietary driver the only option? Is there anything else I can look at? I'm suspecting it's a driver issue, and so will shortly try the proprietary driver from ATI.
I'm running X300 on one of my boxes, and it seems that my particular card runs OK. I don't think it's original ATI card, just uses the ATI chipset. Of course, there's no 3D acceleration (just 2D).
What really counts is the chipset.
So, either you are running using the vesa driver, or you are damn lucky.
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
Quoting Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org:
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 08:58:55PM -0600, Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote:
I'm running X300 on one of my boxes, and it seems that my particular card runs OK. I don't think it's original ATI card, just uses the ATI chipset. Of course, there's no 3D acceleration (just 2D).
What really counts is the chipset.
So, either you are running using the vesa driver, or you are damn lucky.
I guess I'm just damn lucky then.
From lspci:
01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc RV370 5B60 [Radeon X300 (PCIE)]
From xorg.conf:
Section "Device" Identifier "Videocard0" Driver "radeon" VendorName "Videocard vendor" BoardName "ATI Radeon X300" EndSection
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 10:00:23AM -0600, Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote:
Quoting Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org:
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 08:58:55PM -0600, Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote:
I'm running X300 on one of my boxes, and it seems that my particular card runs OK. I don't think it's original ATI card, just uses the ATI chipset. Of course, there's no 3D acceleration (just 2D).
What really counts is the chipset.
So, either you are running using the vesa driver, or you are damn lucky.
I guess I'm just damn lucky then.
From lspci:
01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc RV370 5B60 [Radeon X300 (PCIE)]
From xorg.conf:
Section "Device" Identifier "Videocard0" Driver "radeon" VendorName "Videocard vendor" BoardName "ATI Radeon X300" EndSection
Are you sure that is a 4.2 box ?
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
Quoting Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org:
Are you sure that is a 4.2 box ?
Yup, positive:
$ cat /etc/redhat-release CentOS release 4.2 (Final) $ rpm -q xorg-x11 xorg-x11-6.8.2-1.EL.13.20
Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 10:00:23AM -0600, Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote:
Quoting Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org:
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 08:58:55PM -0600, Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote:
I'm running X300 on one of my boxes, and it seems that my particular card runs OK. I don't think it's original ATI card, just uses the ATI chipset. Of course, there's no 3D acceleration (just 2D).
What really counts is the chipset.
So, either you are running using the vesa driver, or you are damn lucky.
I guess I'm just damn lucky then.
From lspci:
01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc RV370 5B60 [Radeon X300 (PCIE)]
From xorg.conf:
Section "Device" Identifier "Videocard0" Driver "radeon" VendorName "Videocard vendor" BoardName "ATI Radeon X300" EndSection
Are you sure that is a 4.2 box ?
iirc, its just dri that causes issues, disabling dri and using the radeon driver directly seems to keep the system usable.
Quoting Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org:
iirc, its just dri that causes issues, disabling dri and using the radeon driver directly seems to keep the system usable.
That's a separate issue.
"Stable" open source DRI drivers are available up to RV280 chipset (RV100, R100 and RV200 chipsets using radeon driver, R200 to RV280 using r200 driver). RV200 is really R100 on steroids, hence it uses radeon driver. X300 has RV370 chipset. The r300 driver that should support 3xx and (at least some) 4xx chipsets is still under development (experimental version available). AFAIK, still nothing for 5xx chipsets (X1x00 cards) -- maybe r300 will support those too, or maybe it supports them even now, I don't know. The r300 website clearly states "The source code on this website may damage your hardware". I might give it a try one of these days ;-)
If somebody is having issues with X300 card, it's not DRI. Since neither radeon or r200 DRI device drivers support this card (not to be confused with 2D radeon module for X server which is used for all ATI Radeon cards). William has Radeon 7000/VE (according to his lspci output), which uses RV100 chipset (and optionally radeon DRI device driver, if DRI is enabled). That card works fine without DRI, and some versions of it work with DRI too. I have one Radeon 7000 card that works correctly with DRI (however, it's PCI card, not AGP, so somewhat slower) -- seems like I'm an lucky bastard ;-)
BTW, I've just tryed out ATI drivers on X300. 2D seems to be more responsive (but this might be purely subjective, I've not run any benchmarks), and of course there's also 3D acceleration. Installation is not for the faint of hearth indeed. Shame that people working for free in their spare time are polishing their software more than paid programmers.
Make sure you donwload correct version of RPM (i386 or x86_64). Uninstall xorg-x11-Mesa-libGL (ATI RPM containst those libs too). You'll need to use '--force', and on x86_64 you'll also need --allmatches (in case you had both i386 and x86_64 lib installed). Install ATI RPM package. The x86_64 ATI RPM has both 32-bit and 64-bit libraries, so you need only one RPM, don't try to install both i386 and x86_64.
After installing RPM, you need to reconfigure xorg.conf. Documentation points to non-existing fglrxconfig. It was replaced by aticonfig (found it with little Googling), but documentation was not updated. Simply run:
# aticonfig --initial --input=/etc/X11/xorg.conf
Then make sure devel package for current kernel is in place (make sure to use smp devel package if running SMP kernel). Execute (replace KERNEL_PATH to match kernel version, architecture and SMP or non-SMP).
# cd /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod # KERNEL_PATH=/usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-34.EL-smp-x86_64 sh make.sh # cd .. # sh make_install.sh
You will get an error in second step. *Ignore* error as long as you get instruction to execute make_install.sh in parent directory! Took me a bit of Googling to find that out.
You can kill your X server now. After logging in, lsmod should show fglrx is loaded. fglrxinfo should show "ATI" in OpenGL vedor string.
There's still couple of gotchas I'm figuring out. Like resolution defautls to highest my card/monitor combo supports (1792x1344 hurts eyes on 19" monitor). I'm able to change resolution only for current user by going to Applications->Preferences->Screen Resolution. I guess there's option in aticonfig to set that up, haven't looked yet. Try running fgl_glxgears, it should be fast.
Anyhow, seems to be working, if 3D is required...
On Thu, 2006-16-03 at 12:23 -0600, Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote:
BTW, I've just tryed out ATI drivers on X300. 2D seems to be more responsive (but this might be purely subjective, I've not run any benchmarks), and of course there's also 3D acceleration. Installation is not for the faint of hearth indeed. Shame that people working for free in their spare time are polishing their software more than paid programmers.
[snip...]
Holy shit. And here I was thinking the ATI driver install was as simple as the nvidia installer. It's not even close.
I'm starting to understand why people complain so much about ATI support for Linux.
Anyway, thanks for the post, Alexander. That will definitely come in handy.
Regards,
Ranbir
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 10:00 -0600, Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote:
Quoting Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org:
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 08:58:55PM -0600, Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote:
I'm running X300 on one of my boxes, and it seems that my particular card runs OK. I don't think it's original ATI card, just uses the ATI chipset. Of course, there's no 3D acceleration (just 2D).
What really counts is the chipset.
So, either you are running using the vesa driver, or you are damn lucky.
I guess I'm just damn lucky then.
From lspci:
01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc RV370 5B60 [Radeon X300 (PCIE)]
From xorg.conf:
Section "Device" Identifier "Videocard0" Driver "radeon" VendorName "Videocard vendor" BoardName "ATI Radeon X300" EndSection
And I must be living right too. Fully updated 4.2 box.
From rom lspci:
01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc Radeon RV100 QY [Radeon 7000/VE]
From rom xorg.conf:
Section "Device" Identifier "Videocard0" Driver "radeon" VendorName "Videocard vendor" BoardName "ATI Radeon 7000" EndSection
-
Aleksandar Milivojevic -
centos＠911networks.com -
Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu -
Karanbir Singh -
Rodrigo Barbosa -
Troy Engel -
William L. Maltby