From: Patrick T. <us...@ut...> - 2002-02-04 21:34:47
|
Hello, I have linux running on my laptop and am trying to start an instance of user mode linux. Here are the details: Dell Inspiron 7500, p3-500, 256 megs ram. Installed Slackware 8 from the release ISO, and am running: 2.2.19, which is what slackware installed. I have not changed the kernel in any way. So then, I downloaded: user_mode_linux-2.4.17.1um-0.i386.rpm and successfully installed it. So far so good. Then I downloaded and bunzip2'd the file: root_fs_debian2.2_small.bz2 and renamed it to 'root_fs' Then I ran, in the same directory as my root_fs, the command `linux`. It seemed to work ok, looked like a dmesg sort of...but then I got this: NET4: Unix domain sockets 1.0/SMP for Linux NET4.0. Initializing stdio console driver Failed to fcntl F_SETOWN (or F_SETSIG) fd 1 to pid 16692, errno = 22 Failed to fcntl F_SETOWN (or F_SETSIG) fd 0 to pid 16692, errno = 22 Initializing software serial port version 1 Failed to fcntl F_SETOWN (or F_SETSIG) fd 22 to pid 16692, errno = 22 Failed to get IRQ for management console Failed to fcntl F_SETOWN (or F_SETSIG) fd 22 to pid 16692, errno = 22 um_request_irq failed - errno = -1 And then it just hangs. The entire machine is NOT locked - I can alt-F2 to get to other consoles, and just kill off the 5 or 6 processes (linux [(kernel thread)] processes ) and everything is ok again. But as you can see, I am not able to start user mode linux. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks! |
From: Patrick T. <us...@ut...> - 2002-02-05 03:08:39
|
I have a quad processor p3 xeon (500 mhz) with 2 gigs of ram. 1. Anything I should know about running UML instances on this ? I just saw a usenet post saying there were some problems with UML on multiprocessor machines ... any comments on this setup appreciated. 2. Let's say my instances consist of normal stuff like syslog, cron, sendmail and sshd, and that most of them are also running something like named, or a httpd with light traffic, and maybe some are even running mysql or postgres. The question is, how many of these non-intensive UML instances would you think I could successfully run on this machine? (I am hoping to run about 64 of them for QA/test purposes ... fantasy ?) thanks! |
From: Jeff D. <jd...@ka...> - 2002-02-05 03:24:35
|
us...@ut... said: > 1. Anything I should know about running UML instances on this ? I > just saw a usenet post saying there were some problems with UML on > multiprocessor machines ... any comments on this setup appreciated. There needs to be a fix on the host in order for UML to be at all reliable on SMP hosts. I'll work up a fix at some point for the problem. > 2. Let's say my instances consist of normal stuff like syslog, cron, > sendmail and sshd, and that most of them are also running something > like named, or a httpd with light traffic, and maybe some are even > running mysql or postgres. The question is, how many of these > non-intensive UML instances would you think I could successfully run > on this machine? > (I am hoping to run about 64 of them for QA/test purposes ... fantasy > ?) Based on that description of the load and the host, I would guess that 64 wouldn't be a problem. If their activity is synchronized (i.e. they all (or a lot of them) wake up at the same time), then I would say there would likely be performance problems. But if not, then I don't see much of a problem. Jeff |
From: Vincent AE S. <use...@co...> - 2002-02-05 03:47:41
|
Jeff Dike(jd...@ka...)@Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 05:26:17PM -0500: > us...@ut... said: > > 1. Anything I should know about running UML instances on this ? I > > just saw a usenet post saying there were some problems with UML on > > multiprocessor machines ... any comments on this setup appreciated. > > There needs to be a fix on the host in order for UML to be at all reliable > on SMP hosts. I'll work up a fix at some point for the problem. yikes. isnt it reliable on an SMP host? i've only tinkered with it on my dual PIII. do i understand you correctly: the host OS needs to be fixed for UML to run correctly on an SMP machine? -- PGP key: http://codex.net/pgp/pgp.asc Giving everyone and equal opportunity, when they're clearly not equal, is called what children? Communism! -- Edna Krabappel |
From: Patrick T. <us...@ut...> - 2002-02-05 04:29:31
|
Would you characterize the demands of user mode linux in terms of the number of instances you can run, to be roughly the same as FreeBSD jail facility? I'm just curious. > > Based on that description of the load and the host, I would guess that > 64 wouldn't be a problem. If their activity is synchronized (i.e. they > all (or a lot of them) wake up at the same time), then I would say there > would likely be performance problems. But if not, then I don't see much > of a problem. > > Jeff |
From: Patrick T. <us...@ut...> - 2002-02-05 09:41:41
|
Remember these: > Failed to fcntl F_SETOWN (or F_SETSIG) fd 1 to pid 16692, errno = 22 > Failed to fcntl F_SETOWN (or F_SETSIG) fd 0 to pid 16692, errno = 22 > Initializing software serial port version 1 > Failed to fcntl F_SETOWN (or F_SETSIG) fd 22 to pid 16692, errno = 22 > Failed to get IRQ for management console > Failed to fcntl F_SETOWN (or F_SETSIG) fd 22 to pid 16692, errno = 22 > um_request_irq failed - errno = -1 I got these errors because I was running the stock RPM off of a 2.2.x kernel. Since then, I built my own 'linux' and everything has been working great (thank you!). But, after playing around for a while, I decided I wanted to bring up a _second_ virtual machine. The first one is running just fine, and is even on the network. I attempted to start the second one with this simple command line: linux ubd0=./root_fs2 (I have two fs files in that dir - root_fs which the first one is running with, and root_fs2 which I am trying to run this one off of) But as you can see, I get the above errors when I try to start this second instance. What am I doing incorrectly ? thanks, Pat |
From: Patrick T. <us...@ut...> - 2002-02-05 09:45:11
|
Please ignore - I ran the first instance with: ./linux blah and the second with: linux blah So I was getting the original RPM installed binary invoked instead of the new one that I built. On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Patrick Thomas wrote: > > Remember these: > > > Failed to fcntl F_SETOWN (or F_SETSIG) fd 1 to pid 16692, errno = 22 > > Failed to fcntl F_SETOWN (or F_SETSIG) fd 0 to pid 16692, errno = 22 > > Initializing software serial port version 1 > > Failed to fcntl F_SETOWN (or F_SETSIG) fd 22 to pid 16692, errno = 22 > > Failed to get IRQ for management console > > Failed to fcntl F_SETOWN (or F_SETSIG) fd 22 to pid 16692, errno = 22 > > um_request_irq failed - errno = -1 > > I got these errors because I was running the stock RPM off of a 2.2.x > kernel. Since then, I built my own 'linux' and everything has been > working great (thank you!). But, after playing around for a while, I > decided I wanted to bring up a _second_ virtual machine. > > The first one is running just fine, and is even on the network. I > attempted to start the second one with this simple command line: > > linux ubd0=./root_fs2 > > (I have two fs files in that dir - root_fs which the first one is running > with, and root_fs2 which I am trying to run this one off of) > > But as you can see, I get the above errors when I try to start this second > instance. What am I doing incorrectly ? > > thanks, > > Pat > > > _______________________________________________ > User-mode-linux-user mailing list > Use...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-user > |
From: Patrick T. <us...@ut...> - 2002-02-06 06:45:39
|
(this question is based on the underlying assumption that, the smaller and tighter I can make my `linux` binary by ripping out things I do not need, the better performance I will get...Right?) The `linux` that I got with the rpm is size: 1529544 When I compile my own linux, it works wonderfully, and the size is: 7480955 So instead of just saving menuconfig without altering anything, I decided to start ripping things out. The problem is, unlike a normal menuconfig, this one has barely any options at all - just a few really. All I could find to rip out was 'enable sound' and MSDOS filesystem support. This gave me roughly 7400000 ... didn't get much smaller. What part of the strategy of reducing the linux binary for a user mode linux installation do I not understand ? thank you very much, PT |
From: Patrick T. <us...@ut...> - 2002-02-07 01:58:55
|
On this page: http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.net/slack_readme.html I am told about the slackware installation kit. I am told that inside the kit, I will find a root filesystem that will run the installation ... presumably the: inst_fs_slackware_7.0 that is then mentioned. However, I can find no place to download this "slackware installation kit". It is not on the downloads page. Thanks, PT |