On 04/28/03 20:09, Bret Comstock Waldow wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 22:46, Net Llama! wrote:
>> On 04/28/03 19:36, Bret Comstock Waldow wrote:
>> > 1) The impression I get is that as long as it's later than kernel
>> > 2.2.15, my current system (Redhat 9 actually) can run UML. No changes
>> > to my current system are needed.
>> My understanding is that you need a fairly recent UML kernel with SKAS
>> support to run on RH9. I don't think there are any UML kernel patches
>> for 2.2.x kernels.
> Sorry, I think I wrote that unclearly. UML will run on any system with
> a 2.2.15 kernel or later is what I thought the site was saying.
if the official website says that, then its true.
> My current system is Redhat 9, so I'm running kernel 2.4.20.
you're running *redhat's* 2.4.20. you're not running the vanilla
>> > If I'm right about that, is the apparent version label in the name of
>> > the UML kernels listed the version of the kernel it runs? For instance,
>> > the default RPM offered on the site
>> > (http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.net/dl-sf.html) is:
>> > user_mode_linux-184.108.40.206um-0.i386.rpm
>> > Does this mean it's going to be a 2.4.19 linux kernel when it's run?
>> yup. plus the UML patch.
> Ummm, the patch? What needs to be patched? My system's host kernel (my
> 2.4.20 Red Hat kernel) or the UML kernel?
If you wish to use SKAS, rather than TT, then you have to patch the host
kernel as well. Most folks agree that SKAS enabled host kernels
resulting in far better performing UML instances. Now you'll need a UML
guest kernel to run UML, you can't run a normal, 'out of the box' kernel.
> I may be confused about this because I have in mind the UML.rpm, which I
> would assume already has all patches it needs applied before packaging.
yea, that's a precompiled binary TT UML guest kernel. its also quite
old, and buggy. you'll never be able to run oracle with that kernel,
although it should be sufficient to get your feet wet with UML in general.
> Perhaps you are referring to any random kernel I download from
> kernel.org - which then needs the UML patches to become a full-fledged
> UML kernel?
> Oh, the 2.4.19 kernel (from kernel.org, after all, Bret) needs the UML
> patches applied. I think I figured it out.
>> not exactly. kernels are static binaries, so they're not really
>> dependent on the libraries on the system, or is my understanding.
>> there's no reason why you can't run a 2.4.x kernel on RH-6.2. i've run
>> 2.4.18 on a RH-6.2 system, after meeting all the build requirements.
> I didn't know that. Thanks.
> I do have Linux programming queued up for study, but I haven't gotten
> there yet (quite soon, though). Life interferes, you know...
most definitely. i had to learn about UML for my place of employment,
so i got thrown into the fire.
>> i don't think that's possible, as there are no UML kernels or kernel
>> patches for a 2.2.x kernel.
> Bummeur, as the French might say...
i could be wrong. but unless you see it on the official site, it
L. Friedman netllama@...
Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo: http://netllama.ipfox.com
8:10pm up 50 days, 19:36, 3 users, load average: 0.07, 0.02, 0.00