|
From: gboutwel <gbo...@pr...> - 2004-08-11 17:30:14
|
> Does the 2004-07-10 snapshot fix all of the known problems with > microseconds returned by gettimeofday (especially on Windows XP > SP1, which I am using)? In a nutshell.. 0.6.1 was 2.4 kernel, just moving to 2.6 kernel helped tremendously with the gettimeofday problems, but there where still some. I believe an patch that went into the 0710 snapshot helped some more. I still experience clock skew on XP SP1 on Gentoo when doing make sometimes. But it's probably the best it's been in a long time. > I noticed from an earlier message that there is a build of the > 2004-07-19 version from the monotone repository available at > http://firechief.dyndns.org/colinux/>. Does this version fix > the problems? This version doesn't provide any gettimeofday fixes that aren't in 0710. It does include an fix for memory allocation that reportedly speeds-up boot time, and an fix for situations where starting up sometimes resulted in an cannot connect to pipe errors. It's an build of monotone's 07/17/2004 changes (which where what was there on 07/19/2004) when I built that version to give to an guy experiencing an odd problem. Oddly enough the build fixed his problem, so I left it up and have recommended to several people experiencing problems to try it. It's not an OFFICIAL snapshot/release or otherwise. It's just the latest sources on 07/19 compiled, and archived in to an archive. It doesn't even have an installer. You will probalby want to/need to install 0710 as a pre-requisite to running this version if you wish to try it. After that, you'd back-up or make an copy of the 0710 install directory, and unarchive this archive over the top of the existing files. > Is there any good prediction on when there will be an official > coLinux 0.6.2 release? If it is in the next 2 weeks, then I am > better waiting for it, but otherwise I want to consider using a > development snapshot. I'm not sure when Dan's going to release another snapshot or release. I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that it'd be in the next 2 weeks, but I maybe wrong. I've been running the 07/17 code with other patches (namely UML's SKAS3 patch) applied since 7/28 with very little issues. I'd say the 07/17 code is fairly stable and worth moving to TODAY, if it solves your problems. Even if it doesn't solve your all your problems, it will help us deteremine which ones we have solved and which ones still need some work. > * Can I run both the old and new coLinux at the same time so that I > don't have to shut down my working coLinux to test out the new one? > I think this doesn't work because I can't have both versions of the > Windows driver for coLinux installed at the same time. Am I right? Yes and No. Yes you can have both installed (in different directories) and run them interchangably, but No you can't leave your current one running, install the new one and test with it. When running interchangably, you'd need to run a sequence of commands similiar to the following: 1) stop all colinux instances 2) in directory of verison you where just running, run colinux-daemon --remove-driver 3) cd to directory of version you want to run 4) run colinux-daemon --install-driver 5) start any colinux instance you want to run under this version. The main reason for this is that until the coLinux 'API' has been solidified it's still changing and has changed pretty much every version/snapshot. As long as the API changes the Windows side kernel-mode driver can not be used with different versions, doing so causes reboots. The API especially changed in the switch from 2.4 to 2.6. > Is this enough? Will the new coLinux with the new kernel just > simply work? Pretty much, you'll also want to modify your /etc/fstab to point to /dev/cobd/0, or create an symbolic link between /dev/cobd0 and /dev/cobd/0 > Why do the new /dev/cobd/X files need to exist? What software > depends on them being in that location vs. the old location? As far > as I can understand, the coLinux-adapted kernel just knows about the > major number 117 and couldn't care less what names the devices have > in the file system. The only place that I know of that cares about > the names is /etc/fstab. So why can't I just continue using the old > names? The advice on the wiki does not explain this. Because the 2.6 flavor has devfs enabled, not sure why the 2.4 didn't or why the behavior under 2.4 was different than 2.6. devfs is what causes the change from /dev/cobd0 to /dev/cobd/0 and /etc/fstab is the only thing that needs changed. Not changing /etc/fstab results in gentoo not liking the / partition, putting it into RO mode, and booting into a single/rescue mode (every time you boot, until you've fixed the /etc/fstab). Gentoo is pretty much the only distro that had this problem of booting into single/rescue mode on the switch-over. The other distros (namely debian) just worked, so it may be somehting in Gentoo's handling of 2.6 kernels. Sorry I didn't make that clearer when I wrote those instructions on the wiki. You're welcome to go fix it. :) > * What is relationship between the files in /lib/modules/2.4.24-co in > the pre-built 2GB Gentoo root partition and the contents of > vmlinux-modules.tar.gz that comes with coLinux 0.6.1? There are > only two .o files with names in common and they differ. Otherwise, > the modules in vmlinux-modules.tar.gz seem to be a nearly completely > different set from the modules in /lib/modules/2.4.24-co. the vmlinux-modules.tar.gz that ships with colinux installs, are the modules built at the same time the vmlinux is built, put into an archive, which extracts to an path of /lib/modules/<kernelversion>, so in your move to 2.6, you should transfer the vmlinux-modules.tar.gz file from the colinux directory to your image and unarchive it while in the / directory, that is if you want/need modules which aren't built into the kernel. If that's not the case for you (you don't need anything that's not bult-in to the kernel) then you can pretty much not care about the modules or the vmlinux-modules.tar.gz. The difference between vmlinux-modules.tar.gz in 2.4 and vmlinux-modules.tar.gz in 2.6 is the difference in the kernel and the kernels handling of modules in 2.6, which changed pretty dramatically. There's an great document called the 2.6 Halloween document that talks about what's invovled in moving from 2.4 to 2.6, probably well worth the read (sorry I don't have an URL for you). BTW, the changes in the 2.6 kernel module handling, are also there reason you have to install module-init-tools. > Are the ones in vmlinux-modules.tar.gz supposed to be loaded at boot > time (perhaps via initrd?) and the others are for later? Also, why > are the Linux files in /lib/modules/2.4.24-co and not > /lib/modules/2.4.24-co-0.6.1 (which would seem to be the place they > should be based on a page on the wiki). No, Everything that's need for a typical boot is pretty much built-in to the kernel. The vmlinux-modules.tar.gz is provided to give folks who want/need the additional modules the abililty to insmod them, without having to d/l the kernel source, patch it, and build them on their own. > * When I emerged module-init-tools, it did not create an > /etc/modprobe.conf file from my existing /etc/modules.conf file. Am > I supposed to run generate-modprobe.conf or > modules.conf2modprobe.conf? Hmm... Not sure on that. The 2.6 Halloween doc covers the modules.conf to modprobe.conf changes, but I'm not sure how Gentoo specifically handles this. > Do I need to run depmod at some point? Or will this happen > automatically? Most distros run depmod automaticlally, pretty sure Gentoo does too. I hope that answers most your questions. Feel free to question further on any or the repsonse I've given if I didn't make it clear enough. Also, the next snapshot and/or release should include an initrd image which will 'automagically' install the vmlinux-modules.tar.gz files into the file image. I just wrapped up working on that earlier this week. George -------------------------------- Looking for that favorite verse? Search for it in Praize Bible http://www.praize.com/bible/ |