ken at linuxfromscratch.org
Fri Jun 8 06:24:24 PDT 2007
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 10:46:11AM +0200, Tijnema wrote:
> > Dan thinks minor glibc version upgrades (2.3.5 to 2.3.6, maybe 2.6
> > to 2.6.1) are ok.
> Minor upgrades are more or less bug fixes right? So I think Dan is right.
In theory, yes they are bug fixes. In practice, I wouldn't want to
risk hosing a system.
> Yes, I'm staying with BLFS for a long time (forever?), I use it as my
> Server, which is my development machine. The problem for upgrading
> isn't building the programs itself, but the time it takes to compile,
> no matter if it's automated or not, it takes days to recompile all the
> stuff I have installed... I'm only at a good old single core AMD
> Athlon XP system, which is clocked down to 1.15Ghz with 512MB SD
> RAM... and I just can't live without the machine for a few days :P
> It's my server for all kind of stuff, data, music, movies, streaming
> TV, web, Linux program dev system, etc...
I understand your time problem.
> Is there any good way to build the new (B)LFS System next to the old
> one and replace it later? So that I can keep all old programs running
> fine, and just build the new one. 2 drives,
> /boot (100M)
> / (60GB)
> swap (1024 MB)
> /data (500GB)
I believe that X can now be built successfully in chroot, so
possibly the whole system could be built in chroot. That isn't
something I've ever tried.
> So, i just store all data on the 2nd drive as /data, and if it's
> needed I can split the / in 2 partitions of both 30GB, that's enough
> to keep my whole (B)LFS system on both. The only question is if it
> will work, and how to do it.
> I'm currently at glibc-2.3.6, and I would love to upgrade it to
Why ? I've only built glibc-2.6 on ppc64, to see if it helped with
the showstopper gcc-4.2 problems (it didn't), but I came across posts
on diy-linux pointing to some problems, both with itself (maybe
2.6.1 will be released) and with its decision to include a version
> I just described the first problem, the second problem is
> that my server doesn't like working too hard :P If I max load it for
> some time, it will reset automatically, I'm still not sure where the
> problem is, I think it gets overheated or such, but this means I can't
> run GCC4 Test suite while the rest of the system is running, like X,
> KDE etc. I don't know if it works when i shut down X/KDE. It's not
> loaded at my normal desktop, both shutdown with some kind of error,
> but I don't care, because I don't even have a monitor connected to my
> server anymore. I'm using it by LAN (SSH/VNC), When I'm using VNC, it
> starts ,of course, X and KDE, and I can't shut it down because that
> would kill the VNC session. I can't do it through putty either,
> because I need to keep the putty window open, and since the test suite
> takes a few hours to complete, it is impossible for me to keep the
> window open.
Building headless raises the bar. Certainly sounds like either
overheating, or an inadequate power supply. Have you opened the
case up recently, to remove accumulated dust and fluff, and to check
the fans are working ? Athlons used to be notorious for running
hot, at least until the pentium4 redefined hot. Do you have adequate
airflow in the case ? Drives can get hot - I don't totally believe
the figures reported by smartctl (from smartmontools), but they can
indicate problems (my via C7 has a 160GB Samsung without a fan in
front of it which regularly reports temperatures around 48°C even on
a cool day). A couple of summers ago I set my server to spin down
the drives if they were running hot, and overnight - I'm much
happier when I see low temperatures reported. If you haven't already
upgraded the cpu cooler (to something K7 specific, with a good fan
and rated for a fast cpu) you could try that. There was a lot of
development of coolers back in those days, and I don't think your cpu
speed was top of the range, so it might be possible to get it running
cooler. Case fans also help (and check that multiple fans are working
together, e.g. blow in from the front and expel out the back).
> So this points me to two things,
> 1) Will build scripts, like you guys use, resume after a PC restart?
> Or at least restart from the point the script quit, and not start all
> over again?
Mine keep a note of what got built (a file per package to show it
was completed), so only the current package gets rebuilt. I have a
lot of overhead in the scripts to support what I originally wanted
to do! But, that isn't a lot of help if the current package is gcc
or glibc and it repeatedly overheats. I used to have an AmigaOne
which turned out to have cooling problems (aside from the usual
cache coherency issues) - it would suddenly shut down while compiling.
Unfortunately, by the time I'd realised this was a cooling problem it
was probably already too late. I can now view it as "good riddence
to bad rubbish" - I would not say the same thing about an Athlon.
> 2) Is there a way to set the max load for the system to lets say 80%,
> so I'm sure it won't restart?
No idea, and I'm not convinced it would help.
> Ok, too long email now.. :P
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce
More information about the lfs-support