devil-linux-discuss — General Mailing List for all discussions

[Devil-Linux-discuss] newbie overview and dmz help

[Sean L. <qk...@gm...>]

Ok, I got my devil linux set up, and I'm trying to run the following
configuration

Devil linux with 3 nics:

eth0: world interface.  Set to my IP from my ISP.
eth1: internal lan.  eth1 ip is static, 192.168.26.1, using this as a dhcp
server for the internal lan, connected to an 8 port switch.  I have one box
on the switch, and it works fine.  everything on this network gets an IP and
can see the internet just peachy.
eth2: dmz.  network address set to  192.168.1.10.  I set this address to
static, however, I have a linksys wireless router that I am connecting it
too.  I want the linksys to act as my dhcp router.  I can't manage to see
the internet from the linksys or from the computer attached to the linksys
(which has a dhcp address assigned by the linksys)

Two questions:

First, what linux tools and config files are being used by devil linux?  I
want to go look at the man pages for them and understand better what devil
is doing.

Second, as far as I can tell, eth1 is not being bridge to eth0.  So how does
eth1 know where to get to the rest of the internet from?  How can I mimic
that from eth2?  I've looked at the iptables -L output, but that seems to
apply universally.  I've looked at /etc/sysconfig/ifcfg.ethX for all my
interfaces,and again, doesn't seem to be any difference between eth1 and
eth2.  I've checked brctl setting, and apparently nothing is currently set
up.   ip route show has only one difference - there is a broadcast setting
for eth1 at '255.255.255.255 dev eth1 scope link'
I can ping every device on the network, but the dmz on eth2 can't see
outside, to include by ip.  Help?

Thanks!

sean

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] VLAN & routing. Poor performance

[John J. <jj...@ro...>]

Hi m,

Not sure if we have misunderstood each other. But I think we have.

I worked using VLAN 99 and 104 (both are tagged). Native VLAN's as you
say are untagged. Not touched that VLAN in this setup.  There are no
cross-over cables between the machines involved.

=20

The entire setup is running on an VMware ESX server with vSwitches. The
virtual switche  support VLANs. This switch was configured to pass all
vlans through, like cisco trunk ports, without stripping off the vlan
tags so the DL VM gets the packets unmodified. (Two ports where set
aside for this in exercise #4.)

=20

The Windows VM's where on VLAN 104 and VLAN 99. However, as the Windows
VMs are not capable of handling VLAN tag's I configured the ports on the
vSwithes to "tag" the packets appropriately, eg. For these VMs, a normal
switch port was used, same kind as a normal PCs/Servers.=20

=20

For exercise 1,2 & 3 I modified the ports on the vSwitch  for DL to be
either normal pc/server ports or trunkports. Or a combination depending
on the needed configuration.=20

=20

=20

Should this not work? (Scenario #4)

Packet exits Windows VM untagged

Packet enters vSwitch, vSwitch tags with VLAN 104

vSwitch forwards this packet to port DL is connected to

vSwitch does not strip the VLAN tag

DL VM gets the packet, with VLAN tag

"something " strips the VLAN tag and forwards out of the correct virtual
interface in DL

The "kernel" or something, checks a routing table and pushes the packet
into the correct virtual interface

"something" tags the packet with the correct VLAN tag for the virtual
interface

DL VM pushes the packet, with the VLAN tag into the vSwitch

vSwitch forwards this packet to the port where the other Windows VM is

vSwitch strips the packet of the VLAN tag as it exists the vSwitch

=20

All four scenarios are more or less identical, with the exception of
where a tag/untag is performed, vSwitch or DL VM. Or have I completely
lost the plot somewhere? I've been struggling with this for too many
hours now...

=20

With this setup I would say it should be either a Linux or DL bug,
(assuming the packets are tag'ed and untag'ed correctly, and as ping
works with both small and large packets, no loss. I would guess they
are? The error should therefore not be with the vSwitch or anywhere else
except the Operating System of the VM doing the routing?

=20

=20

JJ

=20

=20

PS: I have a similar debate going on in the VMware ESX forums, and there
is a known slowness of UDP packets using the vmxnet card. However, the
e1000 does not have this issue. My issue is the same with both vmxnet
and e1000 cards.

=20

=20

From: dev...@li...
[mailto:dev...@li...] On Behalf Of
Martin Hotze
Sent: 12. august 2007 14:40
To: dev...@li...
Subject: AW: [Devil-Linux-discuss] VLAN & routing. Poor performance

=20

Well, you have 1 physical link, one logical link (VLAN) comes with VLAN
tagged frames, and the other one comes with ... nothing. So I assume
that this causes the problem, because the untagged frames have -
litterally - no idea where to go, but I see it more a bug than as a
feature that you brought some packets through with this setup (1 VLAN
and 1 nothing *g*).

=20

to sum it up: having VLAN tagged frames on one physical link you either
have another tagged VLAN or another untagged VLAN, but you can't have
another logical link without using VLANs.

=20

read here as a starting point for VLANs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlan

=20

So I don't see it as a DL or Linux bug, IMO this is a matter of network
design (even if it is only your DL box and a directly connected PC).

=20

hth, #m

=20

btw: don't use vlan id 1.

=20

________________________________

Von: dev...@li... im Auftrag von
John Jore
Gesendet: So 12.08.2007 15:00
An: dev...@li...
Betreff: Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] VLAN & routing. Poor performance

Hi m,

Thank you for taking time to respond to this, not sure if I understand,
but if you are asking if I've tested with two nics' both in "VLAN mode".
I had not tested this.

Good point btw. I've now tested this too, and performance is good with
SMB traffic in this setup.

=20

#4 below would therefore be:

Two NIC's, both in VLAN mode, map/browsing of shares from a machine on
one side to a machine on the other, speed is good/normal.

=20

Seems to me traffic flows normal when both cards are in the same "mode".
Not sure why this is? I've searched high and low on google, but could
not find this issue documented. This leads to me to think it's not a
common problem, but as "many" (unsubstantiated claim by me) people use
VLAN's in Linux, could it be a problem with this specific kernel/build
etc?

=20

=20

JJ

=20

=20

From: dev...@li...
[mailto:dev...@li...] On Behalf Of
Martin Hotze
Sent: 12. august 2007 10:33
To: dev...@li...
Subject: AW: [Devil-Linux-discuss] VLAN & routing. Poor performance

=20

=20

and what happens if you use 2 VLANs, both tagged or one tagged and one
untagged? At least you would do so in the switching world.

=20

#m

=20

________________________________

Von: dev...@li... im Auftrag von
John Jore
Gesendet: Sa 11.08.2007 21:47
An: dev...@li...
Betreff: [Devil-Linux-discuss] VLAN & routing. Poor performance

Hi!

I've got a VMware VM with 2 NICs, vmxnet/e1000's.  On each side there is
another VM running Windows. I map and browse a share on one from the
other, using the DL VM as a router.

=20

1: When both NICs are running in "normal" mode, no VLANs, speed is
good/normal.

=20

2: When one NIC is running as "normal" and one as a VLAN card, (vmxnet
and e1000 both support this). Speed is horrible and barely works. I can
browse the root of the share, but it soon times-out and can't browse the
share and looses all SMB connectivity with the host. Ping seems to be ok
though, with both small and large packets.=20

=20

3: Remove/disable one NIC and run all traffic as VLAN traffic over the
remaining card (router-on-a-stick): Speed is good/normal.

=20

=20

What is going on?!? And why am I seeing this? I'm using version 1.2.13
of DL.=20

To repeat myself just in case: When a packet arrives on the normal NIC
and gets routed to the VLAN'ed NIC and exits DL performance is horrible.

Could there be a problem with the Linux kernel version when doing
routing from a "non-VLAN'ed" NIC to a "VLAN'ed" NIC? The configuration
of the nic's themselves can't really be wrong as Ping works, end-to-end.
I've tried reducing the MTU as some sites have suggested, but did not
solve anything. Also, I do not think neither vmxnet or e1000 have the
MTU problem with VLANs.

=20

Anyone have any suggestions?

=20

=20

Regards,

John Jore

=20

=20

=20

PS: The firewall was enabled, but it's not doing much, and it's
configuration did not change between these three setup's (enabled
traffic on all interfaces, both vlan's and physical and filtered on IP
addresses only) I would therefore not blame it in this case.

=20

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] VLAN & routing. Poor performance

[Martin H. <ma...@ho...>]

Well, you have 1 physical link, one logical link (VLAN) comes with VLAN =
tagged frames, and the other one comes with ... nothing. So I assume =
that this causes the problem, because the untagged frames have - =
litterally - no idea where to go, but I see it more a bug than as a =
feature that you brought some packets through with this setup (1 VLAN =
and 1 nothing *g*).
=20
to sum it up: having VLAN tagged frames on one physical link you either =
have another tagged VLAN or another untagged VLAN, but you can't have =
another logical link without using VLANs.
=20
read here as a starting point for VLANs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlan
=20
So I don't see it as a DL or Linux bug, IMO this is a matter of network =
design (even if it is only your DL box and a directly connected PC).
=20
hth, #m
=20
btw: don't use vlan id 1.

________________________________

Von: dev...@li... im Auftrag von =
John Jore
Gesendet: So 12.08.2007 15:00
An: dev...@li...
Betreff: Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] VLAN & routing. Poor performance



Hi m,

Thank you for taking time to respond to this, not sure if I understand, =
but if you are asking if I've tested with two nics' both in "VLAN mode". =
I had not tested this.

Good point btw. I've now tested this too, and performance is good with =
SMB traffic in this setup.

=20

#4 below would therefore be:

Two NIC's, both in VLAN mode, map/browsing of shares from a machine on =
one side to a machine on the other, speed is good/normal.

=20

Seems to me traffic flows normal when both cards are in the same "mode". =
Not sure why this is? I've searched high and low on google, but could =
not find this issue documented. This leads to me to think it's not a =
common problem, but as "many" (unsubstantiated claim by me) people use =
VLAN's in Linux, could it be a problem with this specific kernel/build =
etc?

=20

=20

JJ

=20

=20

From: dev...@li... =
[mailto:dev...@li...] On Behalf Of =
Martin Hotze
Sent: 12. august 2007 10:33
To: dev...@li...
Subject: AW: [Devil-Linux-discuss] VLAN & routing. Poor performance

=20

=20

and what happens if you use 2 VLANs, both tagged or one tagged and one =
untagged? At least you would do so in the switching world.

=20

#m

=20

________________________________

Von: dev...@li... im Auftrag von =
John Jore
Gesendet: Sa 11.08.2007 21:47
An: dev...@li...
Betreff: [Devil-Linux-discuss] VLAN & routing. Poor performance

Hi!

I've got a VMware VM with 2 NICs, vmxnet/e1000's.  On each side there is =
another VM running Windows. I map and browse a share on one from the =
other, using the DL VM as a router.

=20

1: When both NICs are running in "normal" mode, no VLANs, speed is =
good/normal.

=20

2: When one NIC is running as "normal" and one as a VLAN card, (vmxnet =
and e1000 both support this). Speed is horrible and barely works. I can =
browse the root of the share, but it soon times-out and can't browse the =
share and looses all SMB connectivity with the host. Ping seems to be ok =
though, with both small and large packets.=20

=20

3: Remove/disable one NIC and run all traffic as VLAN traffic over the =
remaining card (router-on-a-stick): Speed is good/normal.

=20

=20

What is going on?!? And why am I seeing this? I'm using version 1.2.13 =
of DL.=20

To repeat myself just in case: When a packet arrives on the normal NIC =
and gets routed to the VLAN'ed NIC and exits DL performance is horrible.

Could there be a problem with the Linux kernel version when doing =
routing from a "non-VLAN'ed" NIC to a "VLAN'ed" NIC? The configuration =
of the nic's themselves can't really be wrong as Ping works, end-to-end. =
I've tried reducing the MTU as some sites have suggested, but did not =
solve anything. Also, I do not think neither vmxnet or e1000 have the =
MTU problem with VLANs.

=20

Anyone have any suggestions?

=20

=20

Regards,

John Jore

=20

=20

=20

PS: The firewall was enabled, but it's not doing much, and it's =
configuration did not change between these three setup's (enabled =
traffic on all interfaces, both vlan's and physical and filtered on IP =
addresses only) I would therefore not blame it in this case.

=20

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] VLAN & routing. Poor performance

[John J. <jj...@ro...>]

Hi m,

Thank you for taking time to respond to this, not sure if I understand,
but if you are asking if I've tested with two nics' both in "VLAN mode".
I had not tested this.

Good point btw. I've now tested this too, and performance is good with
SMB traffic in this setup.

=20

#4 below would therefore be:

Two NIC's, both in VLAN mode, map/browsing of shares from a machine on
one side to a machine on the other, speed is good/normal.

=20

Seems to me traffic flows normal when both cards are in the same "mode".
Not sure why this is? I've searched high and low on google, but could
not find this issue documented. This leads to me to think it's not a
common problem, but as "many" (unsubstantiated claim by me) people use
VLAN's in Linux, could it be a problem with this specific kernel/build
etc?

=20

=20

JJ

=20

=20

From: dev...@li...
[mailto:dev...@li...] On Behalf Of
Martin Hotze
Sent: 12. august 2007 10:33
To: dev...@li...
Subject: AW: [Devil-Linux-discuss] VLAN & routing. Poor performance

=20

=20

and what happens if you use 2 VLANs, both tagged or one tagged and one
untagged? At least you would do so in the switching world.

=20

#m

=20

________________________________

Von: dev...@li... im Auftrag von
John Jore
Gesendet: Sa 11.08.2007 21:47
An: dev...@li...
Betreff: [Devil-Linux-discuss] VLAN & routing. Poor performance

Hi!

I've got a VMware VM with 2 NICs, vmxnet/e1000's.  On each side there is
another VM running Windows. I map and browse a share on one from the
other, using the DL VM as a router.

=20

1: When both NICs are running in "normal" mode, no VLANs, speed is
good/normal.

=20

2: When one NIC is running as "normal" and one as a VLAN card, (vmxnet
and e1000 both support this). Speed is horrible and barely works. I can
browse the root of the share, but it soon times-out and can't browse the
share and looses all SMB connectivity with the host. Ping seems to be ok
though, with both small and large packets.=20

=20

3: Remove/disable one NIC and run all traffic as VLAN traffic over the
remaining card (router-on-a-stick): Speed is good/normal.

=20

=20

What is going on?!? And why am I seeing this? I'm using version 1.2.13
of DL.=20

To repeat myself just in case: When a packet arrives on the normal NIC
and gets routed to the VLAN'ed NIC and exits DL performance is horrible.

Could there be a problem with the Linux kernel version when doing
routing from a "non-VLAN'ed" NIC to a "VLAN'ed" NIC? The configuration
of the nic's themselves can't really be wrong as Ping works, end-to-end.
I've tried reducing the MTU as some sites have suggested, but did not
solve anything. Also, I do not think neither vmxnet or e1000 have the
MTU problem with VLANs.

=20

Anyone have any suggestions?

=20

=20

Regards,

John Jore

=20

=20

=20

PS: The firewall was enabled, but it's not doing much, and it's
configuration did not change between these three setup's (enabled
traffic on all interfaces, both vlan's and physical and filtered on IP
addresses only) I would therefore not blame it in this case.

=20

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] VLAN & routing. Poor performance

[Martin H. <ma...@ho...>]

=20
and what happens if you use 2 VLANs, both tagged or one tagged and one =
untagged? At least you would do so in the switching world.
=20
#m

________________________________

Von: dev...@li... im Auftrag von =
John Jore
Gesendet: Sa 11.08.2007 21:47
An: dev...@li...
Betreff: [Devil-Linux-discuss] VLAN & routing. Poor performance



Hi!

I've got a VMware VM with 2 NICs, vmxnet/e1000's.  On each side there is =
another VM running Windows. I map and browse a share on one from the =
other, using the DL VM as a router.

=20

1: When both NICs are running in "normal" mode, no VLANs, speed is =
good/normal.

=20

2: When one NIC is running as "normal" and one as a VLAN card, (vmxnet =
and e1000 both support this). Speed is horrible and barely works. I can =
browse the root of the share, but it soon times-out and can't browse the =
share and looses all SMB connectivity with the host. Ping seems to be ok =
though, with both small and large packets.=20

=20

3: Remove/disable one NIC and run all traffic as VLAN traffic over the =
remaining card (router-on-a-stick): Speed is good/normal.

=20

=20

What is going on?!? And why am I seeing this? I'm using version 1.2.13 =
of DL.=20

To repeat myself just in case: When a packet arrives on the normal NIC =
and gets routed to the VLAN'ed NIC and exits DL performance is horrible.

Could there be a problem with the Linux kernel version when doing =
routing from a "non-VLAN'ed" NIC to a "VLAN'ed" NIC? The configuration =
of the nic's themselves can't really be wrong as Ping works, end-to-end. =
I've tried reducing the MTU as some sites have suggested, but did not =
solve anything. Also, I do not think neither vmxnet or e1000 have the =
MTU problem with VLANs.

=20

Anyone have any suggestions?

=20

=20

Regards,

John Jore

=20

=20

=20

PS: The firewall was enabled, but it's not doing much, and it's =
configuration did not change between these three setup's (enabled =
traffic on all interfaces, both vlan's and physical and filtered on IP =
addresses only) I would therefore not blame it in this case.

=20

[Devil-Linux-discuss] VLAN & routing. Poor performance

[John J. <jj...@ro...>]

Hi!

I've got a VMware VM with 2 NICs, vmxnet/e1000's.  On each side there is
another VM running Windows. I map and browse a share on one from the
other, using the DL VM as a router.

=20

1: When both NICs are running in "normal" mode, no VLANs, speed is
good/normal.

=20

2: When one NIC is running as "normal" and one as a VLAN card, (vmxnet
and e1000 both support this). Speed is horrible and barely works. I can
browse the root of the share, but it soon times-out and can't browse the
share and looses all SMB connectivity with the host. Ping seems to be ok
though, with both small and large packets.=20

=20

3: Remove/disable one NIC and run all traffic as VLAN traffic over the
remaining card (router-on-a-stick): Speed is good/normal.

=20

=20

What is going on?!? And why am I seeing this? I'm using version 1.2.13
of DL.=20

To repeat myself just in case: When a packet arrives on the normal NIC
and gets routed to the VLAN'ed NIC and exits DL performance is horrible.

Could there be a problem with the Linux kernel version when doing
routing from a "non-VLAN'ed" NIC to a "VLAN'ed" NIC? The configuration
of the nic's themselves can't really be wrong as Ping works, end-to-end.
I've tried reducing the MTU as some sites have suggested, but did not
solve anything. Also, I do not think neither vmxnet or e1000 have the
MTU problem with VLANs.

=20

Anyone have any suggestions?

=20

=20

Regards,

John Jore

=20

=20

=20

PS: The firewall was enabled, but it's not doing much, and it's
configuration did not change between these three setup's (enabled
traffic on all interfaces, both vlan's and physical and filtered on IP
addresses only) I would therefore not blame it in this case.

=20

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] Boot problem from MS-DOS

[J B. \(user\) <use...@te...>]

Hi and thanks for a good hint.
Freedos can read the directory and find all files on the CD-ROM.

However on the older Compaq  freedos floppy and difficulties of finding
correct CD rom drivers become a new trail. However it pointed out that D-L
1.2.14 release is difficult from floppy boot DOS level, due too simple
directory routines in the DOS boot. It is stucked to the 8.3 level.
If you find another way of building D-L in the CD-ROM image it may help.
Otherwise I think the idea of taking a Flash-Card adapter is a simple way.
Or finding an other Motherboard.
/Jan B

> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Från: dev...@li...
> [mailto:dev...@li...]För Heiko
> Zuerker
> Skickat: den 10 augusti 2007 14:19
> Till: dev...@li...
> Ämne: Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] Boot problem from MS-DOS
>
>
> I just got another idea, why don't you give Free DOS
> http://www.freedos.org/ or Enhanced DR-DOS http://www.drdosprojects.de/ a
> try?
> Maybe they behave better.
>
> Heiko
>
> On Fri, August 10, 2007 03:07, J Bladh (user) wrote:
> > Hi, and thanks for good advice.
> > If my problem is verified, then I think a good ide is to modify the
> > documentation and take away a part D-L indicates how to start
> from floppy.
> >  If I have any problem in my way of doing a new CD, I hope to get that
> > feedback. Today it looks as I don´t get the root level on the CD
> > acceptable for DOS level. Checking the releases 1.2.11 - 1.2.14 gives no
> > date on most files and directories on the root. A PC with
> Win-98 and newer
> > shows a library ( in Command mode or started as DOS) with Both filenames
> > to the left and to the right. Indicates that a second FCB exist for the
> > root. I think this is the case when filenames are longer than
> the DOS 8.3
> > format. /Jan B
> >
> >
> >> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> >> Från: dev...@li...
> >> [mailto:dev...@li...]För Michele
> >> Pensotti
> >> Skickat: den 9 augusti 2007 14:26
> >> Till: dev...@li...
> >> Ämne: Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] Boot problem from MS-DOS
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> At 10.56 09/08/2007 +0200, you wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>> I have a Bootproblem in an older Compaq which needs to start
> >>>
> >> from a floppy
> >>> with MS-DOS.
> >>
> >> But can it boot from an hard drive?
> >>
> >>
> >> If it can, you could do the following:
> >>
> >>
> >> 1) install (on a newer pc) DL on a compact-flash card using an
> >> IDE-CompactFlash adapter
> >> 2) "transplant" the IDE-CF adapter on the older Compaq and let it boot
> >> as if it was an hard drive.
> >>
> >> If it can boot from a normal HD it really should do the same from
> >> a IDE-CF card (to the bios it looks exactly as an HD).
> >>
> >> If, instead, the pc can't boot from HD, I'd try another MSDOS CD
> >> driver, better one that can read Joliet and Rockridge CDs, not only
> >> ISO9660 ones.
> >>
> >>
> >> Here are some:
> >>
> >>
> >> http://oldfiles.org.uk/powerload/cdrom.htm
> >>
> >>
> >> If I remember correctly, the DL cds have all three filesystems on them
> >> (ISO9660 , Joliet and Rockridge).
> >> It's curious however that a short-named file such as linux.bat isn't
> >> visible in ISO9660 mode...
> >>
> >> Good luck!
> >>
> >>
> >> Michele
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> --
> >> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
> >> Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
> >> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
> >> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >>  http://get.splunk.com/
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Devil-linux-discuss mailing list
> >> Dev...@li...
> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-discuss
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >  This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
> > Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
> > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
> > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >>  http://get.splunk.com/
> > _______________________________________________
> > Devil-linux-discuss mailing list
> > Dev...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-discuss
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Regards
>   Heiko Zuerker
>   http://www.devil-linux.org
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
> Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >>  http://get.splunk.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Devil-linux-discuss mailing list
> Dev...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-discuss
>

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] Boot problem from MS-DOS

[Heiko Z. <he...@zu...>]

I just got another idea, why don't you give Free DOS
http://www.freedos.org/ or Enhanced DR-DOS http://www.drdosprojects.de/ a
try?
Maybe they behave better.

Heiko

On Fri, August 10, 2007 03:07, J Bladh (user) wrote:
> Hi, and thanks for good advice.
> If my problem is verified, then I think a good ide is to modify the
> documentation and take away a part D-L indicates how to start from floppy.
>  If I have any problem in my way of doing a new CD, I hope to get that
> feedback. Today it looks as I don´t get the root level on the CD
> acceptable for DOS level. Checking the releases 1.2.11 - 1.2.14 gives no
> date on most files and directories on the root. A PC with Win-98 and newer
> shows a library ( in Command mode or started as DOS) with Both filenames
> to the left and to the right. Indicates that a second FCB exist for the
> root. I think this is the case when filenames are longer than the DOS 8.3
> format. /Jan B
>
>
>> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
>> Från: dev...@li...
>> [mailto:dev...@li...]För Michele
>> Pensotti
>> Skickat: den 9 augusti 2007 14:26
>> Till: dev...@li...
>> Ämne: Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] Boot problem from MS-DOS
>>
>>
>>
>> At 10.56 09/08/2007 +0200, you wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I have a Bootproblem in an older Compaq which needs to start
>>>
>> from a floppy
>>> with MS-DOS.
>>
>> But can it boot from an hard drive?
>>
>>
>> If it can, you could do the following:
>>
>>
>> 1) install (on a newer pc) DL on a compact-flash card using an
>> IDE-CompactFlash adapter
>> 2) "transplant" the IDE-CF adapter on the older Compaq and let it boot
>> as if it was an hard drive.
>>
>> If it can boot from a normal HD it really should do the same from
>> a IDE-CF card (to the bios it looks exactly as an HD).
>>
>> If, instead, the pc can't boot from HD, I'd try another MSDOS CD
>> driver, better one that can read Joliet and Rockridge CDs, not only
>> ISO9660 ones.
>>
>>
>> Here are some:
>>
>>
>> http://oldfiles.org.uk/powerload/cdrom.htm
>>
>>
>> If I remember correctly, the DL cds have all three filesystems on them
>> (ISO9660 , Joliet and Rockridge).
>> It's curious however that a short-named file such as linux.bat isn't
>> visible in ISO9660 mode...
>>
>> Good luck!
>>
>>
>> Michele
>>
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> --
>> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
>> Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
>> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
>> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >>  http://get.splunk.com/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Devil-linux-discuss mailing list
>> Dev...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-discuss
>>
>>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
> Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >>  http://get.splunk.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Devil-linux-discuss mailing list
> Dev...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-discuss
>
>


-- 

Regards
  Heiko Zuerker
  http://www.devil-linux.org

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] missing_modules_httpd_DL-1.2.14-CVS

[<br...@ba...>]

Hi Oliver,

I've done this in DL 1.3 and just "backported" to 1.2

I will have a look at it soon.

Greeting,
Bj=F6rn

-----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
Von: dev...@li... =
[mailto:dev...@li...] Im Auftrag =
von Oliver Niesner
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 9. August 2007 21:21
An: dev...@li...
Betreff: Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] missing_modules_httpd_DL-1.2.14-CVS


>=20
> You'll have to run "make menuconfig" and enable these options.
> This is something new, you can now enable/disable specific apache =
modules.
>=20

I solved the problem by inserting a line in the make script of httpd:

PARAMS=3D"$PARAMS --enable-modules=3Dall"

I think this is not so a bad idea to create all available modules, =
because it gives you still the freedom to switch off unwanted modules in
  the httpd.conf file like it was before.
Maybe that's easier as with menuconfig??
BTW: I selected all Apache2 features in menuconfig, but the error was =
still there :-/ Where are the selections from menuconfig stored?
Unfortunately there is no strace in the build enviroment ;-)

Greetings and thanks


Oliver


-------------------------------------------------------------------------=

This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >>  http://get.splunk.com/ =
_______________________________________________
Devil-linux-discuss mailing list
Dev...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-discuss

_________________________________________________________________________=
___

baulogis GmbH
Zamdorfer Str. 100
81677 M=FCnchen / Munich
Deutschland / Germany
www.baulogis.com

Gesch=E4ftsf=FChrer / Managing Director: Thomas Bachmaier
HRB 133832, Amtsgericht M=FCnchen
Ust-ID: DE 212 020 193


Der Inhalt dieser E-Mail ist vertraulich und ausschlie=DFlich f=FCr den =
bezeichneten Adressaten (dev...@li...) =
bestimmt.
Wenn Sie nicht der vorgesehene Adressat dieser E-Mail oder dessen =
Vertreter sein sollten,
so beachten Sie bitte, dass jede Form der Kenntnisnahme, =
Ver=F6ffentlichung,=20
Vervielf=E4ltigung oder Wiedergabe des Inhalts dieser E-Mail =
unzul=E4ssig ist.
Bitte setzen Sie sich in diesem Fall mit dem Absender der E-Mail in =
Verbindung (br...@ba...).

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] Boot problem from MS-DOS

[J B. \(user\) <use...@te...>]

Hi, and thanks for good advice.
If my problem is verified, then I think a good ide is to modify the
documentation and take away a part D-L indicates how to start from floppy.
If I have any problem in my way of doing a new CD, I hope to get that
feedback. Today it looks as I don´t get the root level on the CD acceptable
for DOS level. Checking the releases 1.2.11 - 1.2.14 gives no date on most
files and directories on the root. A PC with Win-98 and newer shows a
library ( in Command mode or started as DOS) with Both filenames to the left
and to the right. Indicates that a second FCB exist for the root. I think
this is the case when filenames are longer than the DOS 8.3 format.
/Jan B

> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Från: dev...@li...
> [mailto:dev...@li...]För Michele
> Pensotti
> Skickat: den 9 augusti 2007 14:26
> Till: dev...@li...
> Ämne: Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] Boot problem from MS-DOS
>
>
> At 10.56 09/08/2007 +0200, you wrote:
> >Hi,
> >I have a Bootproblem in an older Compaq which needs to start
> from a floppy
> >with MS-DOS.
>
> But can it boot from an hard drive?
>
> If it can, you could do the following:
>
> 1) install (on a newer pc) DL on a compact-flash card using an
> IDE-CompactFlash adapter
> 2) "transplant" the IDE-CF adapter on the older Compaq and let it boot as
> if it was an hard drive.
>
> If it can boot from a normal HD it really should do the same from
> a IDE-CF
> card (to the bios it looks exactly as an HD).
>
> If, instead, the pc can't boot from HD, I'd try another MSDOS CD driver,
> better one that can read Joliet and Rockridge CDs, not only ISO9660 ones.
>
> Here are some:
>
> http://oldfiles.org.uk/powerload/cdrom.htm
>
> If I remember correctly, the DL cds have all three filesystems on them
> (ISO9660 , Joliet and Rockridge).
> It's curious however that a short-named file such as linux.bat isn't
> visible in ISO9660 mode...
>
> Good luck!
>
> Michele
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
> Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >>  http://get.splunk.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Devil-linux-discuss mailing list
> Dev...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-discuss
>

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] Boot problem from MS-DOS

[J B. \(user\) <use...@te...>]

Hi!
I have tested with 1.2.14 too. Same result.

> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Från: dev...@li...
> [mailto:dev...@li...]För Heiko
> Zuerker
> Skickat: den 9 augusti 2007 15:13
> Till: dev...@li...
> Ämne: Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] Boot problem from MS-DOS
>
>
>
> On Thu, August 9, 2007 03:56, Jan Bladh wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I have a Bootproblem in an older Compaq which needs to start
> from a floppy
> > with MS-DOS. It looks to me that this is not supported after
> release 1.2.8
> > Now I tested 1.2.11 - 13 with bad result.
> >
> >
> > The reason for this is probably that the iso file for the CD is made up
> > with an other nameconvention than the MS-DOS CD driver can work with.
> >
> > The startup Command (DOS mode) search for a file linux.bat on C drive.
> > With dir command it is however found but not with dir l*.*, which only
> > gives LICENSE on CD rom. When the PC is booted from HD and has e.g.
> > Windows 98 running then the cd-rom structure looks good. linux.bat is
> > found. Even in Command windows.
> >
> > Can the reason for this be that the bootcd.iso file is made up so it not
> > makes DOS 8.3 files.
> >
> > I have used for test a newer PC which can boot from CD and the same CD
> > boots up and it is running normally.
> >
> > On the elder Compaq, which today have been running very good with D-L
> > firewall for several years is however limited. No USB and will not
> > support boot direct from the CD. I don´t think my issue is many
> D-L users,
> > but anyhow if anyone have a clue on what makes the problem for the later
> > release (even 1.2.13) I would sleep a little bit better. Thanks
> for a good
> > product Jan B
>
> Try the latest testing release, maybe that one behaves better.
> ftp://ftp.devil-linux.org/pub/devel/testing
>
> --
>
> Regards
>   Heiko Zuerker
>   http://www.devil-linux.org
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
> Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >>  http://get.splunk.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Devil-linux-discuss mailing list
> Dev...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-discuss
>

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] missing_modules_httpd_DL-1.2.14-CVS

[Oliver N. <dig...@gm...>]

> 
> You'll have to run "make menuconfig" and enable these options.
> This is something new, you can now enable/disable specific apache modules.
> 

I solved the problem by inserting a line in the make script of httpd:

PARAMS="$PARAMS --enable-modules=all"

I think this is not so a bad idea to create all available modules,
because it gives you still the freedom to switch off unwanted modules in
  the httpd.conf file like it was before.
Maybe that's easier as with menuconfig??
BTW: I selected all Apache2 features in menuconfig, but the error was
still there :-/
Where are the selections from menuconfig stored?
Unfortunately there is no strace in the build enviroment ;-)

Greetings and thanks


Oliver

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] Boot problem from MS-DOS

[Heiko Z. <he...@zu...>]

On Thu, August 9, 2007 03:56, Jan Bladh wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a Bootproblem in an older Compaq which needs to start from a floppy
> with MS-DOS. It looks to me that this is not supported after release 1.2.8
> Now I tested 1.2.11 - 13 with bad result.
>
>
> The reason for this is probably that the iso file for the CD is made up
> with an other nameconvention than the MS-DOS CD driver can work with.
>
> The startup Command (DOS mode) search for a file linux.bat on C drive.
> With dir command it is however found but not with dir l*.*, which only
> gives LICENSE on CD rom. When the PC is booted from HD and has e.g.
> Windows 98 running then the cd-rom structure looks good. linux.bat is
> found. Even in Command windows.
>
> Can the reason for this be that the bootcd.iso file is made up so it not
> makes DOS 8.3 files.
>
> I have used for test a newer PC which can boot from CD and the same CD
> boots up and it is running normally.
>
> On the elder Compaq, which today have been running very good with D-L
> firewall for several years is however limited. No USB and will not
> support boot direct from the CD. I don´t think my issue is many D-L users,
> but anyhow if anyone have a clue on what makes the problem for the later
> release (even 1.2.13) I would sleep a little bit better. Thanks for a good
> product Jan B

Try the latest testing release, maybe that one behaves better.
ftp://ftp.devil-linux.org/pub/devel/testing

-- 

Regards
  Heiko Zuerker
  http://www.devil-linux.org

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] missing_modules_httpd_DL-1.2.14-CVS

[Heiko Z. <he...@zu...>]

Hey Oliver,

On Wed, August 8, 2007 18:34, Oliver Niesner wrote:
> Hi, all!
>
>
> For a long time i use a custom DL iso as my firewall Distro.
> For the last time i had no problems to build and install everything.
>
>
> Today i made a software update of one of my custom packages and
> i ran into two problems.
>
> 1)
>
>
> glibc doesn't build because of a "file exists" error. I solved this by
> commenting out the following line in build/scripts/glibc:
>
> # ln -s libdl.so.2 /lib/libdl.so || exit 1

change this to
ln -sf libdl.so.2 /lib/libdl.so || exit 1

I already fixed this on my build box, it will be in CVS as soon as I
finish my current updates to 1.2.

> After that everything worked as normal.
>
>
> 2)
>
>
> After reboot i found out that apache has not all the modules i had
> before, i didn't check everything but at least
>
> mod_cache.so mod_disk_cache.so mod_proxy.so
>
> are missing!
>
> Unfortunately these files all exist in
> /build/tmp/httpd-2.2.4/modules/cache and
> /build/tmp/httpd-2.2.4/modules/proxy
>
>
> I don't know why they aren't on the final iso :-/
> Maybe it was my modified line??
> Any help appreciated.

You'll have to run "make menuconfig" and enable these options.
This is something new, you can now enable/disable specific apache modules.

-- 

Regards
  Heiko Zuerker
  http://www.devil-linux.org

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] Boot problem from MS-DOS

[Michele P. <10...@ti...>]

At 10.56 09/08/2007 +0200, you wrote:
>Hi,
>I have a Bootproblem in an older Compaq which needs to start from a floppy 
>with MS-DOS.

But can it boot from an hard drive?

If it can, you could do the following:

1) install (on a newer pc) DL on a compact-flash card using an 
IDE-CompactFlash adapter
2) "transplant" the IDE-CF adapter on the older Compaq and let it boot as 
if it was an hard drive.

If it can boot from a normal HD it really should do the same from a IDE-CF 
card (to the bios it looks exactly as an HD).

If, instead, the pc can't boot from HD, I'd try another MSDOS CD driver, 
better one that can read Joliet and Rockridge CDs, not only ISO9660 ones.

Here are some:

http://oldfiles.org.uk/powerload/cdrom.htm

If I remember correctly, the DL cds have all three filesystems on them 
(ISO9660 , Joliet and Rockridge).
It's curious however that a short-named file such as linux.bat isn't 
visible in ISO9660 mode...

Good luck!

Michele

[Devil-Linux-discuss] Boot problem from MS-DOS

[Jan B. <use...@te...>]

Hi,
I have a Bootproblem in an older Compaq which needs to start from a =
floppy with MS-DOS.
It looks to me that this is not supported after release 1.2.8 Now I =
tested 1.2.11 - 13 with bad result.

The reason for this is probably that the iso file for the CD is made up =
with an other nameconvention than the MS-DOS CD driver can work with.=20

The startup Command (DOS mode) search for a file linux.bat on C drive.
With dir command it is however found but not with dir l*.*, which only =
gives LICENSE
on CD rom. When the PC is booted from HD and has e.g. Windows 98 running =
then the cd-rom structure looks good. linux.bat is found. Even in =
Command windows.

Can the reason for this be that the bootcd.iso file is made up so it not =
makes DOS 8.3 files.

I have used for test a newer PC which can boot from CD and the same CD =
boots up and it is running normally.

On the elder Compaq, which today have been running very good with D-L =
firewall for several years is however limited. No USB and will not =
support boot direct from the CD.
I don=B4t think my issue is many D-L users, but anyhow if anyone have a =
clue on what makes the problem for the later release (even 1.2.13) I =
would sleep a little bit better.
Thanks for a good product
Jan B

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] missing_modules_httpd_DL-1.2.14-CVS

[Oliver N. <dig...@gm...>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Rudner, Björn schrieb:
> Hi Oliver,
> 
> I remember I also had the error of a duplicate file in glibc.
> 
> Have you tried to delete the whole build-path and do a "clean checkout" before running the build-process?
> 
> It helped out many times to do that when I had build errors after I had already done a complete build-install-iso run.
>

Hi Björn,
I had the same idea ;-)
Because i couldn't solve the problem i backed up my custom scripts and removed the
complete  build tree.
Then i fetched the complete build tree from CVS, but the problem still exists :-/

Thanks so far

Oliver
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with CentOS - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGusiK724ZL5LNhNcRApDyAJwL7CdaQDHYnWGMexaXFQbWUNj2RQCffyDU
Q0WK1YrsRG/lWEgEWSkgHkM=
=1r5q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] missing_modules_httpd_DL-1.2.14-CVS

[<br...@ba...>]

Hi Oliver,

I remember I also had the error of a duplicate file in glibc.

Have you tried to delete the whole build-path and do a "clean checkout" =
before running the build-process?

It helped out many times to do that when I had build errors after I had =
already done a complete build-install-iso run.

Greetings Bj=F6rn

-----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
Von: dev...@li... =
[mailto:dev...@li...] Im Auftrag =
von Oliver Niesner
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 9. August 2007 01:35
An: dev...@li...
Betreff: [Devil-Linux-discuss] missing_modules_httpd_DL-1.2.14-CVS

Hi, all!

For a long time i use a custom DL iso as my firewall Distro.
For the last time i had no problems to build and install everything.

Today i made a software update of one of my custom packages and
i ran into two problems.

1)

glibc doesn't build because of a "file exists" error. I solved
this by commenting out the following line in build/scripts/glibc:

# ln -s libdl.so.2 /lib/libdl.so || exit 1

After that everything worked as normal.

2)

After reboot i found out that apache has not all the modules i had
before, i didn't check everything but at least

mod_cache.so
mod_disk_cache.so
mod_proxy.so

are missing!

Unfortunately these files all exist in
/build/tmp/httpd-2.2.4/modules/cache and
/build/tmp/httpd-2.2.4/modules/proxy

I don't know why they aren't on the final iso :-/
Maybe it was my modified line??
Any help appreciated.

Thanks a lot,

Oliver Niesner

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=

This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >>  http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Devil-linux-discuss mailing list
Dev...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-discuss

_________________________________________________________________________=
___

baulogis GmbH
Zamdorfer Str. 100
81677 M=FCnchen / Munich
Deutschland / Germany
www.baulogis.com

Gesch=E4ftsf=FChrer / Managing Director: Thomas Bachmaier
HRB 133832, Amtsgericht M=FCnchen
Ust-ID: DE 212 020 193


Der Inhalt dieser E-Mail ist vertraulich und ausschlie=DFlich f=FCr den =
bezeichneten Adressaten (dev...@li...) =
bestimmt.
Wenn Sie nicht der vorgesehene Adressat dieser E-Mail oder dessen =
Vertreter sein sollten,
so beachten Sie bitte, dass jede Form der Kenntnisnahme, =
Ver=F6ffentlichung,=20
Vervielf=E4ltigung oder Wiedergabe des Inhalts dieser E-Mail =
unzul=E4ssig ist.
Bitte setzen Sie sich in diesem Fall mit dem Absender der E-Mail in =
Verbindung (br...@ba...).

[Devil-Linux-discuss] missing_modules_httpd_DL-1.2.14-CVS

[Oliver N. <dig...@gm...>]

Hi, all!

For a long time i use a custom DL iso as my firewall Distro.
For the last time i had no problems to build and install everything.

Today i made a software update of one of my custom packages and
i ran into two problems.

1)

glibc doesn't build because of a "file exists" error. I solved
this by commenting out the following line in build/scripts/glibc:

# ln -s libdl.so.2 /lib/libdl.so || exit 1

After that everything worked as normal.

2)

After reboot i found out that apache has not all the modules i had
before, i didn't check everything but at least

mod_cache.so
mod_disk_cache.so
mod_proxy.so

are missing!

Unfortunately these files all exist in
/build/tmp/httpd-2.2.4/modules/cache and
/build/tmp/httpd-2.2.4/modules/proxy

I don't know why they aren't on the final iso :-/
Maybe it was my modified line??
Any help appreciated.

Thanks a lot,

Oliver Niesner

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] RE : Re: i485, i586, i685 ?

[Bruce S. <bw...@ar...>]

> What about the etc.tar.bz2 file ?
> 
> Is it anything different if i pass from i486 to i686?

There is another software difference you need to be aware of.  This is
assuming you're downloading and running the pre-compiled/stock releases
(as opposed to compiling them yourself).

The pre-compiled i486 and i586 releases are identical, except for the
processor selected when everything was compiled.

The pre-compiled i686-server release is almost identical to the others,
except it is compiled without grsecurity.  This is intended to run as a
"server" (Samba/DNS/PHP/Apache/Database/Mail/Proxy/FTP/...) since
grsecurity has a nasty habit of killing processes that it believes are
using too much system resources.  It's real annoying having grsecurity
randomly kill your server processes.

This is with the stock grsecurity configuration; I'm sure you could tune
grsecurity to work with a server too, but it's much easier just to leave
out grsecurity on the i686-server release.

Because of this, if you're going to ONLY use DL as a firewall, you might
want to use the i486 or i586 release, as it's slightly "harder".  If
you're going to run DL as a server, I recommend the i686-server release.
(personally I use the i686 release for everything, including firewalls,
but that's just me :)

To answer your question, the /etc/ files are identical on all releases
(just config files, no binaries there), except the i686-server release
is probably missing the config file(s) for grsecurity.  So you should be
able to go from i486 or i586 to i686-server without a problem.  But you
may run into a problem of missing grsecurity config file(s) running a
i686-server etc.tar.bz2 file any of the other releases.  

If you really want to go from i686-server to i486 or i586 and you have a
lot of customizations, you could should be able to take the grsecurity
config file(s) from a stock i486/586 etc.tar.gz2 file and manually add
them to your i686-server release before you downgrade to i586/i486.

 - BS

[Devil-Linux-discuss] RE : Re: i485, i586, i685 ?

[Goldorak <kol...@ya...>]

yes I mean i486, i586 and i686 :)


thank you for the fast answer.


What about the etc.tar.bz2 file ?

Is it anything different if i pass from i486 to i686?






--- "Bryan J. Smith" <the...@ya...> a écrit :

> Goldorak <kol...@ya...> wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I am using devil linux version i485, on a Pentium
> 4, i
> > am abit confuse about version i585 and i685... SMP
> and
> > server.
> 
> I assume you mean i486, i586 and i686.  They are
> common Instruction
> Set Architecture (ISA) nomenclature.  Here's the
> general concepts ...
> 
> i486 adds several requirements at the CPU ISA,
> including the
> Translation Look-aside Buffer.  It has been a long,
> long, long time
> (circa 1994) since a processor design wasn't fully
> i486 ISA
> compatible.  This includes countless "embedded"
> processors.
> 
> i586 is actually, and quite not well proliferated, a
> bastard.  It is
> really designed _only_ for Intel branded, true,
> _original_ (not
> Pentium Pro, II, etc...) Pentium processors. 
> Although it will run on
> a majority of processors, a number of optimizations
> and approaches
> are not ideal for newer processors.
> 
> i686 is pretty much the kernel you always want to
> run on any recent
> hardware circa 1999+.  In kernel 2.6, most
> optimizations are
> dynamically loaded for different processors (i.e.,
> there is no
> separate Athlon optimizations in kernel 2.6, they
> are in the i686
> build).
> 
> In the overwhelming majority of cases, processors
> are best on i686
> or, if they are not fully i686 compatible (e.g.,
> original Cyrix 6x86,
> possibly M2 as well), i486.  You typically never
> want to run the i586
> built binary/kernel except on true, original Pentium
> processors --
> not latter Pentium Pro, II, etc... processors. 
> I.e., in some cases,
> you'd be better off running a i486 kernel on many
> i686 ISA compatible
> processors than a i586 (because of the hacks
> required for Intel's
> first generation, superscalar design that were
> subsequently address
> in the i686/Pentium Pro on-ward).
> 
> That's just "a general overview."
> 
> There are various modifications to how i686 works,
> including 36-bit
> (64GiB) Processor Address Extensions (PAE) that
> allow more than 4GiB
> (3GiB user) memory addressing that servers typically
> use (at a
> performance hit in overhead, especially for non-AMD
> processors
> without an on-chip I/O MMU -- long story).  There
> are also
> multiprocessor (MP) scheduling considerations for
> i686 kernels.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Bryan J. Smith   Professional, Technical Annoyance
> b.j...@ie...    http://thebs413.blogspot.com
> --------------------------------------------------
>      Fission Power:  An Inconvenient Solution
> 
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
> Still grepping through log files to find problems? 
> Stop.
> Now Search log events and configuration files using
> AJAX and a browser.
> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> 
> http://get.splunk.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Devil-linux-discuss mailing list
> Dev...@li...
>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-discuss
> 



      _____________________________________________________________________________ 
Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail 

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] i485, i586, i685 ?

[Bryan J. S. <the...@ya...>]

Goldorak <kol...@ya...> wrote:
> Hello,
> I am using devil linux version i485, on a Pentium 4, i
> am abit confuse about version i585 and i685... SMP and
> server.

I assume you mean i486, i586 and i686.  They are common Instruction
Set Architecture (ISA) nomenclature.  Here's the general concepts ...

i486 adds several requirements at the CPU ISA, including the
Translation Look-aside Buffer.  It has been a long, long, long time
(circa 1994) since a processor design wasn't fully i486 ISA
compatible.  This includes countless "embedded" processors.

i586 is actually, and quite not well proliferated, a bastard.  It is
really designed _only_ for Intel branded, true, _original_ (not
Pentium Pro, II, etc...) Pentium processors.  Although it will run on
a majority of processors, a number of optimizations and approaches
are not ideal for newer processors.

i686 is pretty much the kernel you always want to run on any recent
hardware circa 1999+.  In kernel 2.6, most optimizations are
dynamically loaded for different processors (i.e., there is no
separate Athlon optimizations in kernel 2.6, they are in the i686
build).

In the overwhelming majority of cases, processors are best on i686
or, if they are not fully i686 compatible (e.g., original Cyrix 6x86,
possibly M2 as well), i486.  You typically never want to run the i586
built binary/kernel except on true, original Pentium processors --
not latter Pentium Pro, II, etc... processors.  I.e., in some cases,
you'd be better off running a i486 kernel on many i686 ISA compatible
processors than a i586 (because of the hacks required for Intel's
first generation, superscalar design that were subsequently address
in the i686/Pentium Pro on-ward).

That's just "a general overview."

There are various modifications to how i686 works, including 36-bit
(64GiB) Processor Address Extensions (PAE) that allow more than 4GiB
(3GiB user) memory addressing that servers typically use (at a
performance hit in overhead, especially for non-AMD processors
without an on-chip I/O MMU -- long story).  There are also
multiprocessor (MP) scheduling considerations for i686 kernels.


-- 
Bryan J. Smith   Professional, Technical Annoyance
b.j...@ie...    http://thebs413.blogspot.com
--------------------------------------------------
     Fission Power:  An Inconvenient Solution

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] For Developers : Missing Files

[Goldorak <kol...@ya...>]

Thank you Jiri Motycka,

I dont know what's happened when i didnt the first
save-config, but that files was missing.

Since, I re-ask for the fresh etc, and now i get them
:)

thanx again,

Kind Regards,





> Subject: Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] For Developers :
> Missing Files
> To: dev...@li...
> Message-ID: <46B...@vc...>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1;
> format=flowed
> 
> Dood day.
> 
> I am using testing version 1.2.14-2007-03-05 and all
> these files are 
> presented.
> 
> ls -l /etc/squid.conf /etc/mime.conf /etc/man.conf
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root   4583 Jan  1  1980
> /etc/man.conf
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root  11651 Jan  1  1980
> /etc/mime.conf
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 148542 Jan  1  1980
> /etc/squid.conf
> 
> Jiri Motycka
> 
> 
> Goldorak napsal(a):
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am using Devil-linux for 2 weeks now, I am still
> > busy configuring everything, and First I would
> like to
> > thank you all for this fine work :)
> >
> > I just notice 3 important files missing.
> > - a squid.conf (maybe it will be nice to add it in
> > /etc or in /usr/share/doc/ like for vsftpd.conf)
> > - for squid, its also missing the mine.conf
> >
> > - and a man.conf file in /etc.
> >
> > Hope It was a good idea to tell you about it.
> >
> > Kind Regards,


      _____________________________________________________________________________ 
Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail 

[Devil-Linux-discuss] i485, i586, i685 ?

[Goldorak <kol...@ya...>]

Hello,

I am using devil linux version i485, on a Pentium 4, i
am abit confuse about version i585 and i685... SMP and
server.

Could you help me to choose which one fit my machine?

my guess is i685 server ?

I the case I do better change version, how should i
proceeded with my etc folder?

Should I create a fresh one, and then put back all the
config file which go for my "devil linux" or can I
just keep the exact same etc folder?

Thank you for your help,

Kind Regards,





      _____________________________________________________________________________ 
Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail 

[Devil-Linux-discuss] =?utf-8?q?_Re=3A__Intel_SATA_problems_-_AHC?= =?utf-8?q?I_/_ata=5Fpiix?=

[Dmitry K. <dm...@dz...>]

Hello, Serge 

Thanks a lot, I've got the things working with loop-AES. And I also went a
bit further by implementing dm-crypt layer with full support of LUKS-type
crypting, etc. Just had to add cryptsetup and uuencode binaries manually
over the filesystem, because there are no such packages supplied with DL.
Things work smoothly and as expected.

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:11:16 +0400, Serge Leschinsky <fi...@in...>
wrote:
> Hi Dmitry,
> 
> Dmitry Komarov wrote:
>>
>> Could you please also help me with an idea on how should I activate the
>> loop-AES module in 1.3.xx?
> 
> Do you still need a help with loop-AES in 1.3? I did a small test and it
> seems
> to work now.
> 
> --
>  Serge Leschinsky
>