From: Bret C. W. <bw...@al...> - 2003-04-29 02:37:06
|
Hello, I have some basic questions to try to get my head straight about UML. Or maybe some basic assertions of what I think is going on so someone can say "yes" or "no, that's not what it means". 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. 2) UML is a program I run which then acts as a self-contained Linux system (well, self-contained if I include the filesystem-in-a-file it accesses on my host system). 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-2.4.19.5um-0.i386.rpm Does this mean it's going to be a 2.4.19 linux kernel when it's run? I'm confused about the interaction between apparent kernel versions of the UML kernel, and apparent distro versions of the filesystems - doesn't there need to be a match between the kernel version and the filesystem/distro version (as in Redhat 6.2 wasn't a 2.4 kernel, was it?) Don't I need to match them for library compatibility purposes? I would like to run a 2.2 series kernel in the virtual machine, so I can run Oracle 8i (and study it). Oracle 8i doesn't run on 2.4 series kernels, which is why I can't just run it on my current setup. Thanks in advance for answers, comments, enlightenment, and any jokes. Cheers, Bret -- Bret Comstock Waldow <bw...@al...> |
From: Net Llama! <net...@li...> - 2003-04-29 02:47:36
|
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. > 2) UML is a program I run which then acts as a self-contained Linux > system (well, self-contained if I include the filesystem-in-a-file it > accesses on my host system). this is true, basically. > 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-2.4.19.5um-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. > I'm confused about the interaction between apparent kernel versions of > the UML kernel, and apparent distro versions of the filesystems - > doesn't there need to be a match between the kernel version and the > filesystem/distro version (as in Redhat 6.2 wasn't a 2.4 kernel, was > it?) Don't I need to match them for library compatibility purposes? 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 would like to run a 2.2 series kernel in the virtual machine, so I can i don't think that's possible, as there are no UML kernels or kernel patches for a 2.2.x kernel. > run Oracle 8i (and study it). Oracle 8i doesn't run on 2.4 series > kernels, which is why I can't just run it on my current setup. i think very recently someone managed to get 9i running in UML. > > Thanks in advance for answers, comments, enlightenment, and any jokes. oracle...ick. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ L. Friedman net...@li... Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo: http://netllama.ipfox.com 7:40pm up 50 days, 19:06, 3 users, load average: 0.08, 0.05, 0.01 |
From: Bret C. W. <bw...@al...> - 2003-04-29 03:09:46
|
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. My current system is Redhat 9, so I'm running kernel 2.4.20. > > 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-2.4.19.5um-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? 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. 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... > 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... > oracle...ick. Yeah, well, I need to eat (or I want to anyway). Unfortunately there aren't many companies that pay for just being cool... Oracle is low on the list, behind PERL, and Linux programming. I already do Java and Automated Testing, but it's still a hard world right now. Thanks for the info. Cheers, Bret -- Bret Comstock Waldow <bw...@al...> |
From: Net Llama! <net...@li...> - 2003-04-29 03:16:39
|
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 pristine 2.4.20. >> > 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-2.4.19.5um-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? yup. > Oh, the 2.4.19 kernel (from kernel.org, after all, Bret) needs the UML > patches applied. I think I figured it out. yup >> 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 doesn't exist. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ L. Friedman net...@li... 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 |
From: Adrian P. <a.p...@me...> - 2003-04-29 05:27:19
|
>>>>> "Bret" == Bret Comstock Waldow <bw...@al...> writes: Bret> 1) The impression I get is that as long as it's later than Bret> kernel 2.2.15, my current system (Redhat 9 actually) can run Bret> UML. No changes to my current system are needed. I would just note that I had problems running UML on 2.2.19 (or perhaps 20 or later) and I had no clue what would was happening and Jeff, obviously, was disinclined to spend time looking at it. It may well work for you though on 2.2. Sincerely, Adrian Phillips -- Who really wrote the works of William Shakespeare ? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shakespeare/ |
From: M A Y. <m.a...@du...> - 2003-04-29 08:36:10
|
On Tue, 28 Apr 2003, 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. True, but you need a very recent UML kernel (2.4.20-4um) to work on RedHat 9. > 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? The uml patch numbers consist of the standard base kernel you apply them to, plus a UML revision number, 2.4.20-4um is shorthand for kernel 2.4.20 with the uml-patch-2.4.20-4 patch applied. > Oracle 8i doesn't run on 2.4 series kernels That is not true, Oracle supports 8i on RedHat 7.1, which has a 2.4 kernel, and 8i will work on RedHat 7.3. The glibc version matters much more than the kernel version for Oracle. Michael Young |
From: Net Llama! <net...@li...> - 2003-04-29 14:50:24
|
On 04/29/03 01:35, M A Young wrote: >> Oracle 8i doesn't run on 2.4 series kernels > > That is not true, Oracle supports 8i on RedHat 7.1, which has a 2.4 > kernel, and 8i will work on RedHat 7.3. The glibc version matters much > more than the kernel version for Oracle. Oracle hasn't qualified 8i on anything later than RH-7.1. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ L. Friedman net...@li... Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo: http://netllama.ipfox.com 7:45am up 51 days, 7:11, 3 users, load average: 0.12, 0.17, 0.09 |
From: Malcolm T. <ma...@co...> - 2003-04-29 15:35:15
|
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 07:49:46AM -0700, Net Llama! wrote: > On 04/29/03 01:35, M A Young wrote: > >> Oracle 8i doesn't run on 2.4 series kernels > > > >That is not true, Oracle supports 8i on RedHat 7.1, which has a 2.4 > >kernel, and 8i will work on RedHat 7.3. The glibc version matters much > >more than the kernel version for Oracle. > > Oracle hasn't qualified 8i on anything later than RH-7.1. It is certified on Red Hat Advanced Server 2.1, which I believe is more recent. Malcolm -- If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends? |
From: Net Llama! <net...@li...> - 2003-04-29 16:28:57
|
On 04/29/03 08:35, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote: > On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 07:49:46AM -0700, Net Llama! wrote: >> On 04/29/03 01:35, M A Young wrote: >> >> Oracle 8i doesn't run on 2.4 series kernels >> > >> >That is not true, Oracle supports 8i on RedHat 7.1, which has a 2.4 >> >kernel, and 8i will work on RedHat 7.3. The glibc version matters much >> >more than the kernel version for Oracle. >> >> Oracle hasn't qualified 8i on anything later than RH-7.1. > > It is certified on Red Hat Advanced Server 2.1, which I believe is more > recent. No, that's 9i, not 8i. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ L. Friedman net...@li... Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo: http://netllama.ipfox.com 9:25am up 51 days, 8:51, 3 users, load average: 0.01, 0.04, 0.01 |