When I downloaded the iso for 6.0 install, K3b said the iso wouldn't fit on the blank DVD.
So I downloaded and burned the LiveDVD. When I boot it, I get the blue splash screen (it says "CentOS... Community Enterprise OS on the bottom, logo to the right), but nothing else comes up. Hitting various keys does nothing.
Downloaded and burned the Netinstall CD. It gives an error message that it can't install because the machine's CPU doesn't have pae.
So is it the end of CentOS/RH for this machine? (I can't believe that. One of the great things about Linux has always been that it'll run on old hardware.) Or are these fixable problems? Or are there workarounds?
Or should I go for a different distribution?
On 08/28/2011 09:06 PM, ken wrote:
When I downloaded the iso for 6.0 install, K3b said the iso wouldn't fit on the blank DVD.
Hi,
From the 6.0 Release Notes here:
"The i386 DVD is just a bit too large to fit on normal single layer DVD+R media. It can be burnt successfully on DVD-R or dual-layer media."
HTH, Jorge
On 08/28/2011 09:15 PM Jorge Fábregas wrote:
On 08/28/2011 09:06 PM, ken wrote:
When I downloaded the iso for 6.0 install, K3b said the iso wouldn't fit on the blank DVD.
Hi,
From the 6.0 Release Notes here:
"The i386 DVD is just a bit too large to fit on normal single layer DVD+R media. It can be burnt successfully on DVD-R or dual-layer media."
HTH, Jorge
Thanks, Jorge. That's what I suspected. Yeah, I have the DVD+R/W.
It would be nice if the download page mentioned that. Save people some time and effort.
On 08/29/2011 02:22 AM, ken wrote:
From the 6.0 Release Notes here:
"The i386 DVD is just a bit too large to fit on normal single layer DVD+R media. It can be burnt successfully on DVD-R or dual-layer media."
Thanks, Jorge. That's what I suspected. Yeah, I have the DVD+R/W.
It would be nice if the download page mentioned that. Save people some time and effort.
Where / which page would you have expected to see this ?
- KB
Le 30/08/2011 14:48, Karanbir Singh a écrit :
On 08/29/2011 02:22 AM, ken wrote:
From the 6.0 Release Notes here:
"The i386 DVD is just a bit too large to fit on normal single layer DVD+R media. It can be burnt successfully on DVD-R or dual-layer media."
Thanks, Jorge. That's what I suspected. Yeah, I have the DVD+R/W.
It would be nice if the download page mentioned that. Save people some time and effort.
Where / which page would you have expected to see this ?
- KB
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Here :
http://wiki.centos.org/Manuals/ReleaseNotes/CentOS6.0#head-710e17fe8ed8c98a1...
In "4. Known Issues" : "The i386 DVD is just a bit too large to fit on normal single layer DVD+R media. It can be burnt successfully on DVD-R or dual-layer media"
MM
On 08/30/2011 08:48 AM Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 08/29/2011 02:22 AM, ken wrote:
From the 6.0 Release Notes here:
"The i386 DVD is just a bit too large to fit on normal single layer DVD+R media. It can be burnt successfully on DVD-R or dual-layer media."
Thanks, Jorge. That's what I suspected. Yeah, I have the DVD+R/W.
It would be nice if the download page mentioned that. Save people some time and effort.
Where / which page would you have expected to see this ?
- KB
Karanbir,
http://www.centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=15 would be one place. But, given the way search engines might index pages, people could bypass that page and land directly on the mirrors page, http://www.centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=13, and so miss the warning altogether.
For this reason, and because it's the only sure-fire way to get the warning to those who would need it, it would be best if the directory name and/or the ISO names themselves contained the warning, e.g., CentOS-6_0-PAE-required-*-.iso.
In addition, if it happens, per your other email in this thread, that it's possible to offer another CentOS distribution which doesn't require PAE, then we'd need a distinguishing name for those ISOs.
hi Ken,
On 08/30/2011 03:04 PM, ken wrote:
http://www.centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=15 would be one place. But, given the way search engines might index pages, people could bypass that page and land directly on the mirrors page, http://www.centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=13, and so miss the warning altogether.
How about a Readme file ( please propose something ) that would go into the ISOS directory on all machines ? eg: http://centos.mirror.netelligent.ca/centos/6/isos/x86_64/
that might be a good place to have a url pointing at the release notes, perhaps a few workds on what the sha sums are and how people can verify them, and the various media formats ( livecd, dvd, cd, netinstall, torrents ).
If you want to put something together, we could add that in right away. And I'll add a note to the release process to make sure its updated, maintained into the future releases.
In addition, if it happens, per your other email in this thread, that it's possible to offer another CentOS distribution which doesn't require PAE, then we'd need a distinguishing name for those ISOs.
right, that would be a bit of a journey down the road. Step 1 would be to find a solution to the PAE-needed issue, then make sure there is some mechanism in place ( manual or otherwise ) to carry that work forward into the updates, finally come up with a delivery ( install ) mechanism. It should just be a case of an alternative installer with the works-with-pae-absent kernel.
- KB
Karanbir Singh wrote:
hi Ken,
On 08/30/2011 03:04 PM, ken wrote:
http://www.centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=15 would be one place. But, given the way search engines might index pages, people could bypass that page and land directly on the mirrors page, http://www.centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=13, and so miss the warning altogether.
How about a Readme file ( please propose something ) that would go into the ISOS directory on all machines ? eg: http://centos.mirror.netelligent.ca/centos/6/isos/x86_64/
Excellent idea - a simple README file with some basic how to knowledge. I do not have enough knowledge to create this, I am more than happy to edit and make it read well and have it flow logically.
that might be a good place to have a url pointing at the release notes, perhaps a few workds on what the sha sums are and how people can verify them, and the various media formats ( livecd, dvd, cd, netinstall, torrents ).
If you want to put something together, we could add that in right away. And I'll add a note to the release process to make sure its updated, maintained into the future releases.
In addition, if it happens, per your other email in this thread, that it's possible to offer another CentOS distribution which doesn't require PAE, then we'd need a distinguishing name for those ISOs.
right, that would be a bit of a journey down the road. Step 1 would be to find a solution to the PAE-needed issue, then make sure there is some mechanism in place ( manual or otherwise ) to carry that work forward into the updates, finally come up with a delivery ( install ) mechanism. It should just be a case of an alternative installer with the works-with-pae-absent kernel.
- KB
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 08/30/2011 10:10 AM Karanbir Singh wrote:
hi Ken,
On 08/30/2011 03:04 PM, ken wrote:
http://www.centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=15 would be one place. But, given the way search engines might index pages, people could bypass that page and land directly on the mirrors page, http://www.centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=13, and so miss the warning altogether.
How about a Readme file ( please propose something ) that would go into the ISOS directory on all machines ? eg: http://centos.mirror.netelligent.ca/centos/6/isos/x86_64/
that might be a good place to have a url pointing at the release notes, perhaps a few workds on what the sha sums are and how people can verify them, and the various media formats ( livecd, dvd, cd, netinstall, torrents ).
If you want to put something together, we could add that in right away. And I'll add a note to the release process to make sure its updated, maintained into the future releases.
In addition, if it happens, per your other email in this thread, that it's possible to offer another CentOS distribution which doesn't require PAE, then we'd need a distinguishing name for those ISOs.
right, that would be a bit of a journey down the road. Step 1 would be to find a solution to the PAE-needed issue, then make sure there is some mechanism in place ( manual or otherwise ) to carry that work forward into the updates, finally come up with a delivery ( install ) mechanism. It should just be a case of an alternative installer with the works-with-pae-absent kernel.
- KB
Hi, KB,
Congratulations. You parsed out my mixed up email. I somehow replied to one issue in the wrong email. I shouldn't reply to email while listening to news about hurricanes and floods and before I'm well into my second cup of coffee.
As for the readme... or PRE-DOWNLOAD-README...
---------------------------------------------------- To burn this ISO to DVD, you need to use a DVD-RW drive and compatible media. Due to a difference in formatting, this ISO will not fit on a DVD+ disk.
In addition, CentOS 6.0 requires a PAE-capable CPU. This distribution will not run otherwise. On Linux do "cat /proc/cpuinfo|grep ^flags" to see if "pae" is mentioned there. If not, use a different distribution.
See the CentOS wiki for more information. <URL> ----------------------------------------------------
Others might have other language to include.
Do we have translators for users who prefer something non-English?
ken wrote:
On 08/30/2011 10:10 AM Karanbir Singh wrote:
hi Ken,
On 08/30/2011 03:04 PM, ken wrote:
http://www.centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=15 would be one place. But, given the way search engines might index pages, people could bypass that page and land directly on the mirrors page, http://www.centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=13, and so miss the warning altogether.
How about a Readme file ( please propose something ) that would go into the ISOS directory on all machines ? eg: http://centos.mirror.netelligent.ca/centos/6/isos/x86_64/
that might be a good place to have a url pointing at the release notes, perhaps a few workds on what the sha sums are and how people can verify them, and the various media formats ( livecd, dvd, cd, netinstall, torrents ).
If you want to put something together, we could add that in right away. And I'll add a note to the release process to make sure its updated, maintained into the future releases.
In addition, if it happens, per your other email in this thread, that it's possible to offer another CentOS distribution which doesn't require PAE, then we'd need a distinguishing name for those ISOs.
right, that would be a bit of a journey down the road. Step 1 would be to find a solution to the PAE-needed issue, then make sure there is some mechanism in place ( manual or otherwise ) to carry that work forward into the updates, finally come up with a delivery ( install ) mechanism. It should just be a case of an alternative installer with the works-with-pae-absent kernel.
- KB
Hi, KB,
Congratulations. You parsed out my mixed up email. I somehow replied to one issue in the wrong email. I shouldn't reply to email while listening to news about hurricanes and floods and before I'm well into my second cup of coffee.
As for the readme... or PRE-DOWNLOAD-README...
To burn this ISO to DVD, you need to use a DVD-RW drive and compatible media. Due to a difference in formatting, this ISO will not fit on a DVD+ disk.
It may be a DVD-R - does not need to be a RW
In addition, CentOS 6.0 requires a PAE-capable CPU. This distribution will not run otherwise. On Linux do "cat /proc/cpuinfo|grep ^flags" to see if "pae" is mentioned there. If not, use a different distribution.
See the CentOS wiki for more information. <URL>
Others might have other language to include.
Do we have translators for users who prefer something non-English?
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Sun, 2011-08-28 at 21:06 -0400, ken wrote:
When I downloaded the iso for 6.0 install, K3b said the iso wouldn't fit on the blank DVD.
I remember reading that there are two main DVD formats + and -. One has (more?) error correction than the other and therefore everything may not fit on that type of DVD. Centos 5.6 for X64 requires 2 DVDs.
Which version did you download ?
So I downloaded and burned the LiveDVD. When I boot it, I get the blue splash screen (it says "CentOS... Community Enterprise OS on the bottom, logo to the right), but nothing else comes up. Hitting various keys does nothing.
Are you able to do a read integrity test of any of the DVDs ?
Downloaded and burned the Netinstall CD. It gives an error message that it can't install because the machine's CPU doesn't have pae.
Recently someone wrote that PAE related to i386 but was not required for x64. What CPU type is your target machine ?
So is it the end of CentOS/RH for this machine? (I can't believe that. One of the great things about Linux has always been that it'll run on old hardware.) Or are these fixable problems? Or are there workarounds?
That used to be true but it is inevitable as 'modern' distributions get more capable not all current distributions cater for older spec. equipment. I hear there are other, non-Centos, distributions that do cater for less technically advanced machines.
I'm waiting for Centos 6.1 before I try version 6.
Or should I go for a different distribution?
Have you tried Scientific Linux ? It is another Red Hat clone closely(?) related to Centos.
Paul.
On 08/28/2011 09:17 PM Always Learning wrote:
On Sun, 2011-08-28 at 21:06 -0400, ken wrote:
When I downloaded the iso for 6.0 install, K3b said the iso wouldn't fit on the blank DVD.
I remember reading that there are two main DVD formats + and -. One has (more?) error correction than the other and therefore everything may not fit on that type of DVD. Centos 5.6 for X64 requires 2 DVDs.
Okay, that's the problem. Well, it shouldn't be a problem really, but that's why I have it and others don't.
Which version did you download ?
Yeah, it was the i386.
So I downloaded and burned the LiveDVD. When I boot it, I get the blue splash screen (it says "CentOS... Community Enterprise OS on the bottom, logo to the right), but nothing else comes up. Hitting various keys does nothing.
Are you able to do a read integrity test of any of the DVDs ?
The md5sum on the download checked out. I didn't verify the copy of the burned DVD though. I burned the DVD from the CLI with growiso. I couldn't think immediately how to do an md5sum on the DVD, so didn't. I just googled for how to do this. The info I found wasn't helpful.
Downloaded and burned the Netinstall CD. It gives an error message that it can't install because the machine's CPU doesn't have pae.
Recently someone wrote that PAE related to i386 but was not required for x64. What CPU type is your target machine ?
Broadly speaking it's a pentium i686, but without pae. The fact that this machine is excluded from RH/CentOS doesn't bode well for Linux.
So is it the end of CentOS/RH for this machine? (I can't believe that. One of the great things about Linux has always been that it'll run on old hardware.) Or are these fixable problems? Or are there workarounds?
That used to be true but it is inevitable as 'modern' distributions get more capable not all current distributions cater for older spec. equipment. I hear there are other, non-Centos, distributions that do cater for less technically advanced machines.
Well, since I've got two or three other machines I'm either upgrading or installing linux on, machines that are older than this one, I guess I'm done with RH/CentOS.
I'm waiting for Centos 6.1 before I try version 6.
Do you think hardware restrictions will be lessened in 6.1?
Or should I go for a different distribution?
Have you tried Scientific Linux ? It is another Red Hat clone closely(?) related to Centos.
Thanks for the tip. I'll have a look.
On Sun, 2011-08-28 at 22:33 -0400, ken wrote:
On 08/28/2011 09:17 PM Always Learning wrote:
Broadly speaking it's a pentium i686, but without pae. The fact that this machine is excluded from RH/CentOS doesn't bode well for Linux.
The i686 is an i386 32 bit CPU and needs PAE to address more than 64 GB.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P6_%28microarchitecture%29 states about the i686:-
"PAE and wider 36-bit address bus to support 64 GB of physical memory (the linear address space of a process was still limited to 4 GB)."
Well, since I've got two or three other machines I'm either upgrading or installing linux on, machines that are older than this one, I guess I'm done with RH/CentOS.
Is your use of a particular Intel CPU really to blame and not necessarily Centos ?
You could stay with Centos 5.x and upgrade to 5.7 when it becomes available. You do not have to upgrade to Centos 6.
If the motherboard is fairly modern, and has the correct type of CPU socket, you may be able to replace the CPU for a PAE one.
I'm waiting for Centos 6.1 before I try version 6.
Do you think hardware restrictions will be lessened in 6.1?
No. I think many initial teething problems will be solved and installation bugs, if any, will be reduced or eliminated. I'm letting the more daring and adventurous folk with lots of spare time discover the problems.
When M$ introduced Windows 3, they had to create version 3.1 because of the problems. Even that had bugs so Windows 3.11 was introduced. The same with M$ DOS 6, the eventual stable version was 6.22. The same with Windows 98. That had to be followed by 98 version 2 (Second Edition) and then version 3 (Millennium Edition). Centos is a lot more reliable but there are usually some odd problems with a major upgrade.
On 08/28/2011 11:37 PM Always Learning wrote:
On Sun, 2011-08-28 at 22:33 -0400, ken wrote:
On 08/28/2011 09:17 PM Always Learning wrote:
Broadly speaking it's a pentium i686, but without pae. The fact that this machine is excluded from RH/CentOS doesn't bode well for Linux.
The i686 is an i386 32 bit CPU and needs PAE to address more than 64 GB.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P6_%28microarchitecture%29 states about the i686:-
"PAE and wider 36-bit address bus to support 64 GB of physical memory (the linear address space of a process was still limited to 4 GB)."
Paul, this is good to read, but irrelevant. I'm currently using 2G of RAM in this machine (less in the others), run several server apps as well as client apps and 2G of RAM suffices quite nicely. Only token amounts of swap are used. I could upgrade this box to 4G of RAM, but what for? It's not needed. Nothing would run any faster or better. So what's the point?
Well, since I've got two or three other machines I'm either upgrading or installing linux on, machines that are older than this one, I guess I'm done with RH/CentOS.
Is your use of a particular Intel CPU really to blame and not necessarily Centos ?
Really...? "blame"...? If this CPU functions just fine on RH/CentOS 5.6 and other distributions, by what rationale can it be blamed for anything?
You could stay with Centos 5.x and upgrade to 5.7 when it becomes available. You do not have to upgrade to Centos 6.
If the motherboard is fairly modern, and has the correct type of CPU socket, you may be able to replace the CPU for a PAE one.
Of course I *could* possibly do this. To what end? As said, the apps I'm using wouldn't run any better or faster. It's much easier and simpler and faster and cheaper to download a different distribution.
I'm waiting for Centos 6.1 before I try version 6.
Do you think hardware restrictions will be lessened in 6.1?
No. I think many initial teething problems will be solved and installation bugs, if any, will be reduced or eliminated. I'm letting the more daring and adventurous folk with lots of spare time discover the problems.
Re: the question. I wouldn't think so either. It wouldn't make sense to require pae for 6.0 but not for 6.1 and beyond.
That "spare time" factor... yeah. Upgrading CPUs doesn't fit into the precious few spare time slots in my calendar.
When M$ introduced Windows 3, they had to create version 3.1 because of the problems. Even that had bugs so Windows 3.11 was introduced. The same with M$ DOS 6, the eventual stable version was 6.22. The same with Windows 98. That had to be followed by 98 version 2 (Second Edition) and then version 3 (Millennium Edition). Centos is a lot more reliable but there are usually some odd problems with a major upgrade.
I hope we're not going to start rationalizing the presence of linux bugs on the basis of Microsoft's record of failures.
On Monday, August 29, 2011 12:12:03 PM ken wrote:
On 08/28/2011 11:37 PM Always Learning wrote:
On Sun, 2011-08-28 at 22:33 -0400, ken wrote:
On 08/28/2011 09:17 PM Always Learning wrote:
...
Well, since I've got two or three other machines I'm either upgrading or installing linux on, machines that are older than this one, I guess I'm done with RH/CentOS.
Is your use of a particular Intel CPU really to blame and not necessarily Centos ?
Really...? "blame"...? If this CPU functions just fine on RH/CentOS 5.6 and other distributions, by what rationale can it be blamed for anything?
Now could you please do what you should have done from the beginning and tell us what CPU you're trying to install C6 on. Please.
All distributions make a choice when it comes to how old hardware to support. Do you find it strange that C5 supports older hardware than C6?
/Peter
On Mon, 2011-08-29 at 06:12 -0400, ken wrote:
I hope we're not going to start rationalizing the presence of linux bugs on the basis of Microsoft's record of failures.
Bugs, or "programme difficulties", are inevitable.
M$ success is promoting the standardisation of exchange of computer data and promoting the wider acceptance of computers at home by people not computer-knowledgeable. Despite that the future is open-source with the option of paid-support.
How long before M$ gives away Windoze and charges for updates (bug rectifications), anti-virus measures and 'hand-holding' support ?
* For $10 a month free technical support and advice 9 am to 5 pm;
* $20 a month for evenings up to 10 pm;
* $30 a month for 24 hours a day Mondays to Friday; and
* for complete peace of mind $40 a month for 24 hours service 7 days a week.
* Tired of waiting for a technical support person to answer the phone ? Join our priority club for a speedy answer - only $99 a month !
A lot of gratitude and praise is due to many unknown people who made contributions large and small to the very significant, but inadequately publicised, computer revolution of which Centos is a proud and worthy participant.
Always Learning wrote:
On Mon, 2011-08-29 at 06:12 -0400, ken wrote:
I hope we're not going to start rationalizing the presence of linux bugs on the basis of Microsoft's record of failures.
Bugs, or "programme difficulties", are inevitable.
M$ success is promoting the standardisation of exchange of computer data and promoting the wider acceptance of computers at home by people not computer-knowledgeable. Despite that the future is open-source with the option of paid-support.
How long before M$ gives away Windoze and charges for updates (bug rectifications), anti-virus measures and 'hand-holding' support ?
<snip of price list>
Ancient office funny (old when I started office jobs): Answers: $0.10 Good Answers: $0.50 Correct Answers: $1.00 Dumb looks are still free
mark "except M$ *charges* for verbal dumb looks"
On 08/28/11 7:33 PM, ken wrote:
Recently someone wrote that PAE related to i386 but was not required for
x64. What CPU type is your target machine ?
Broadly speaking it's a pentium i686, but without pae. The fact that this machine is excluded from RH/CentOS doesn't bode well for Linux.
its late 2011, the world is finally moving to 64bit as the primary platform. this doesn't bode well for your old 32bit-only CPU. a 32bit only CPU can no longer be considered enterprise grade.
On 08/28/2011 11:38 PM John R Pierce wrote:
On 08/28/11 7:33 PM, ken wrote:
Recently someone wrote that PAE related to i386 but was not required for
x64. What CPU type is your target machine ?
Broadly speaking it's a pentium i686, but without pae. The fact that this machine is excluded from RH/CentOS doesn't bode well for Linux.
its late 2011, the world is finally moving to 64bit as the primary platform. this doesn't bode well for your old 32bit-only CPU. a 32bit only CPU can no longer be considered enterprise grade.
Snob appeal does work on a lot of people. Maybe in today's world it's a character flaw, but I prefer actual reasons.
On 08/29/11 3:20 AM, ken wrote:
Snob appeal does work on a lot of people. Maybe in today's world it's a character flaw, but I prefer actual reasons.
how "passive-aggressive" of you. There's nothing 'snob' about it, it is a simple technical and financial decision. RHEL targets SERVERS, and every server made since about 1996 has 64bit capable processors, or at least PAE support in 32bit mode. in 2011, 4GB of memory is $20 worth, and without PAE or 64bit, you can't support more.
put very simply, your ?? year old muttbox is not within Red Hat's target market for new versions of Enterprise Linux, they saw no justification in having to generate and test a seperate kernel for low end hardware older than 5+ years, and committing to updates for it for the next 6 years.
You can continue to run EL 5 on it for years to come. Or choose any number of other Linux distributions which target down rev hardware.
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, John R Pierce wrote:
On 08/29/11 3:20 AM, ken wrote:
You can continue to run EL 5 on it for years to come. Or choose any number of other Linux distributions which target down rev hardware.
Or just do what I did. Put an EL5 install on (which runs nicely). Download the El6 live CD, and chroot into that (to use the newer yum). Using that yum, do a yum install of EL6 into a new partition (I've previously used anaconda for this, but this time I used yum). Install a kernel that doesn't need PAE:
[epel-kernel-nonpae] name=Non-PAE kernel build for el6/i686 baseurl=http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/lkundrak/kernel-nonpae/epel-$releasever/... enabled=1 skip_if_unavailable=1 gpgcheck=0
Twiddle the grub config, reboot, and be happy that your machine (in my case a 6 year old 1.1GHz Pentium M based laptop) runs CentOS 6 beautifully.
If you want to run linux on old hardware, you need to bring your own linux knowledge to bear.
jh
On 08/30/2011 04:32 AM John Hodrien wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, John R Pierce wrote:
On 08/29/11 3:20 AM, ken wrote:
You can continue to run EL 5 on it for years to come. Or choose any number of other Linux distributions which target down rev hardware.
Or just do what I did. Put an EL5 install on (which runs nicely). Download the El6 live CD, and chroot into that (to use the newer yum). Using that yum, do a yum install of EL6 into a new partition (I've previously used anaconda for this, but this time I used yum). Install a kernel that doesn't need PAE:
[epel-kernel-nonpae] name=Non-PAE kernel build for el6/i686 baseurl=http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/lkundrak/kernel-nonpae/epel-$releasever/... enabled=1 skip_if_unavailable=1 gpgcheck=0
Twiddle the grub config, reboot, and be happy that your machine (in my case a 6 year old 1.1GHz Pentium M based laptop) runs CentOS 6 beautifully.
If you want to run linux on old hardware, you need to bring your own linux knowledge to bear.
John,
It's refreshing to receive an on-topic, intelligent and civil response, one worthy of replying to. And kudos for crafting this solution!
Can I ask, how long have you been running this configuration? And have you noticed in this time any problems related to the non-PAE kernel? Also, do you run server apps on your laptop, e.g.. apache, mysqld, sshd, cups, postfix, mailman? It might be easier just to send the output of "chkconfig --list |grep -w on"... to me privately if you have security concerns.
Thanks++, ken
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, ken wrote:
It's refreshing to receive an on-topic, intelligent and civil response, one worthy of replying to. And kudos for crafting this solution!
It's a bit faffy, and doing a yum install rather than an anaconda install means there was a little bit more niggly setup left to do. But I'd have no worries about doing it this way.
Can I ask, how long have you been running this configuration?
Not ages, but you're not going to see any problems from this kernel change.
And have you noticed in this time any problems related to the non-PAE kernel? Also, do you run server apps on your laptop, e.g.. apache, mysqld, sshd, cups, postfix, mailman? It might be easier just to send the output of "chkconfig --list |grep -w on"... to me privately if you have security concerns.
You can happily run anything you like, we're only talking about disabling PAE. You're limiting yourself to ~3Gbytes of RAM, but given my laptop's hardware only supports 1.25Gbytes maximum, that's not really a problem. Seriously, it's going to be able to do exactly what any other non-PAE enabled distribution would be able to do.
jh
On 08/30/2011 03:20 PM John Hodrien wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, ken wrote:
...
It's a bit faffy, and doing a yum install rather than an anaconda install means there was a little bit more niggly setup left to do. But I'd have no worries about doing it this way.
Though I'm glad those days are gone, I started out in Linux downloading tarballs over a 2400 baud modem onto 3.5" floppies, patching and compiling kernels, and figuring out dependencies by puzzling out error messages. A package management system was not even a future dream then. So I wouldn't recoil from your workaround, but it's too long a story to tell my customers and less techy folk who come to me for advice. Nor would I tell them to ditch their "muttboxes" and bend over for the hardware man when, as you've shown, and what a couple others here have expressed in their absence of saying, none of that is necessary technically. So while your craft wouldn't be a big deal personally (if no one else does, you should sketch it out on the wiki or somewhere), there are others to consider.
Can I ask, how long have you been running this configuration?
Not ages, but you're not going to see any problems from this kernel change.
And have you noticed in this time any problems related to the non-PAE kernel? Also, do you run server apps on your laptop, e.g.. apache, mysqld, sshd, cups, postfix, mailman? ....
You can happily run anything you like, we're only talking about disabling PAE. You're limiting yourself to ~3Gbytes of RAM, but given my laptop's hardware only supports 1.25Gbytes maximum, that's not really a problem. Seriously, it's going to be able to do exactly what any other non-PAE enabled distribution would be able to do.
jh
Good to know. Thanks.
On 08/30/2011 09:32 AM, John Hodrien wrote:
[epel-kernel-nonpae] name=Non-PAE kernel build for el6/i686 baseurl=http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/lkundrak/kernel-nonpae/epel-$releasever/...
this would be a fantastic resource to have in CentOS-6-Extras or Plus, so I went to look and that kernel has not had any updates since release. What are the chances that you might be willing to reach out and see if he is willing to do this on a more regular basis - and we can workout howto get CentOS running with it.
- KB
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 08/30/2011 09:32 AM, John Hodrien wrote:
[epel-kernel-nonpae] name=Non-PAE kernel build for el6/i686 baseurl=http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/lkundrak/kernel-nonpae/epel-$releasever/...
this would be a fantastic resource to have in CentOS-6-Extras or Plus, so I went to look and that kernel has not had any updates since release. What are the chances that you might be willing to reach out and see if he is willing to do this on a more regular basis - and we can workout howto get CentOS running with it.
Would it not just be easier to add a kernel-nonpae target to your CentOS-plus kernel rpm with CONFIG_X86_PAE=n? The kernel he's released has Xen disabled, and the odd bit in modules that is compiled into the base kernel, but otherwise looks the same. Does Xen require PAE?
jh
-
Always Learning -
John Hodrien -
John R Pierce -
Jorge Fábregas -
Karanbir Singh -
ken -
m.roth＠5-cent.us -
Mehdi MAACHE -
Peter Kjellström -
Rob Kampen