Hi
I just noticed this problem -
I'm missing some large files created in the filesystem.
This is 'ls' output from 2.4.0-test11/test10
total 33
drwxr-xr-x 6 root root 4096 Nov 20 18:06 .
drwxr-xr-x 42 root root 1024 Nov 20 14:02 ..
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Nov 19 15:50 X
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 16384 Sep 30 18:45 lost+found
ls: zero: Value too large for defined data type
And this is same directory with 2.2.17pre9
total 4561569
drwxr-xr-x 6 root root 4096 lis 20 18:06 .
drwxr-xr-x 42 root root 1024 lis 20 14:02 ..
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 16384 z?? 30 18:45 lost+found
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 lis 19 15:50 X
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4294967295 lis 20 18:08 zero
Thought the 'zero' file has been created in 2.4.0-test11
I can't see it again with this kernel.
I would assume this is some problem of the kernel,
but maybe its incompatibility in libc - anyway I'm using
uptodate Debian Woody if this helps.
bye
--
There are three types of people in the world:
those who can count, and those who can't.
Zdenek Kabelac http://i.am/kabi/ [email protected] {debian.org; fi.muni.cz}
On 20 Nov 00 at 17:56, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
> I just noticed this problem -
> I'm missing some large files created in the filesystem.
>
> This is 'ls' output from 2.4.0-test11/test10
> total 33
> drwxr-xr-x 6 root root 4096 Nov 20 18:06 .
> drwxr-xr-x 42 root root 1024 Nov 20 14:02 ..
> drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Nov 19 15:50 X
> drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 16384 Sep 30 18:45 lost+found
> ls: zero: Value too large for defined data type
>
> but maybe its incompatibility in libc - anyway I'm using
> uptodate Debian Woody if this helps.
It is problem with Debian's glibc, it is compiled with 2.2.x kernel
headers. I filled bugreport against this few weeks ago, but it was marked
as inappropriate because of Debian glibc is built against newest
kernel-headers package, and newest kernel-headers package is still 2.2.x.
Maybe someone (you) should fill bug against kernel-headers or kernel-source
to get 2.4.x into Debian. Then Ben Collins (Debian glibc maintainer) can
recompile and officially release glibc compiled against 2.4.x kernel.
Best regards,
Petr Vandrovec
[email protected]
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 07:06:07PM +0000, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
> On 20 Nov 00 at 17:56, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
> > I just noticed this problem -
> > I'm missing some large files created in the filesystem.
> >
> > This is 'ls' output from 2.4.0-test11/test10
> > total 33
> > drwxr-xr-x 6 root root 4096 Nov 20 18:06 .
> > drwxr-xr-x 42 root root 1024 Nov 20 14:02 ..
> > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Nov 19 15:50 X
> > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 16384 Sep 30 18:45 lost+found
> > ls: zero: Value too large for defined data type
> >
> > but maybe its incompatibility in libc - anyway I'm using
> > uptodate Debian Woody if this helps.
>
> It is problem with Debian's glibc, it is compiled with 2.2.x kernel
> headers. I filled bugreport against this few weeks ago, but it was marked
> as inappropriate because of Debian glibc is built against newest
> kernel-headers package, and newest kernel-headers package is still 2.2.x.
>
> Maybe someone (you) should fill bug against kernel-headers or kernel-source
> to get 2.4.x into Debian. Then Ben Collins (Debian glibc maintainer) can
> recompile and officially release glibc compiled against 2.4.x kernel.
> Best regards,
> Petr Vandrovec
> [email protected]
Does kernel 2.4.x compile and run well for all of our supported archs?
Do programs compiled against a glibc with LFS (2.4.x kernel) support, and
using that LFS support, work on kernel 2.2.x machines?
If the answer to the first one is "no", then the spread of LFS will be
slow in Debian, until 2.4.0 becomes stable enough to use. If the answer to
the second is "no", then you wont see LFS support in Debian till post
woody.
Secondly, anyone who thinks they know what they are doing, can simply
download the Debian glibc sources files, and build against kernel-2.4.0
headers with this simple command:
LINUX_SOURCE=/usr/src/linux-2.4.0-test11 apt-get -b source glibc
Simple, eh? :)
Ben
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [email protected] -- [email protected] -- [email protected] '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
On 20 Nov 00 at 13:19, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> Does kernel 2.4.x compile and run well for all of our supported archs?
AFAIK yes. At least on all Debian archs.
> Do programs compiled against a glibc with LFS (2.4.x kernel) support, and
> using that LFS support, work on kernel 2.2.x machines?
Yes. Even glibc (2.2) compiled against kernel without LFS support has LFS
interface. Of course limited to 2GB files only.
> Secondly, anyone who thinks they know what they are doing, can simply
> download the Debian glibc sources files, and build against kernel-2.4.0
> headers with this simple command:
>
> LINUX_SOURCE=/usr/src/linux-2.4.0-test11 apt-get -b source glibc
>
> Simple, eh? :)
But time consuming... If you already invested CPU power to compile
that large beast...
Best regards,
Petr Vandrovec
[email protected]
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 07:32:39PM +0000, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
> On 20 Nov 00 at 13:19, Ben Collins wrote:
> >
> > Does kernel 2.4.x compile and run well for all of our supported archs?
>
> AFAIK yes. At least on all Debian archs.
So, sparc, ultrasparc, i386 (with pcmcia support), alpha, arm, m68k,
powerpc? I know that mips, s390 and hppa almost require a 2.4.0 kernel,
even if they aren't stable yet. But the other ports are more important,
because we released them already, so we have a certain status quo to keep
them working well.
Anyway, this isn't a major point.
> > Do programs compiled against a glibc with LFS (2.4.x kernel) support, and
> > using that LFS support, work on kernel 2.2.x machines?
>
> Yes. Even glibc (2.2) compiled against kernel without LFS support has LFS
> interface. Of course limited to 2GB files only.
On some platforms...
E.g. I can already access > 2gig files on my ultrasparc :)
> > Secondly, anyone who thinks they know what they are doing, can simply
> > download the Debian glibc sources files, and build against kernel-2.4.0
> > headers with this simple command:
> >
> > LINUX_SOURCE=/usr/src/linux-2.4.0-test11 apt-get -b source glibc
> >
> > Simple, eh? :)
>
> But time consuming... If you already invested CPU power to compile
> that large beast...
Well, patience is a virtue. Right now we don't have it in Debian for some
very good reasons. We just transitioned to a new glibc (2.2 is there, and
it works almost flawlessly, thanks to the glibc folks). Next step is gcc3
and kernel 2.4. Both of those combined promise to introduce some new and
exciting bugs and conflicts. We can't just "dump them in there". We'de
rather make a sane migration, test upgrades from previous versions, and
work in our transition mechanisms. IOW, we don't have to just worry about
1 architecture and 1 distribution, we have to make sure upgrades work,
make sure things don't break, and ensure backward compatibility is retained
for 5 architectures that have released already (new archs don't need a
transisition obviously).
That's a large undertaking, but the good thing is, in the end, the wait
will be worth it to our users. People wont be stuck with Debian 2.2,
simply because they can't do a decent upgrade to 2.3, when that releases.
The issue is already known, and yes it will get done in time. Getting all
strung out about a kernel that isn't even released stable yet, is not
going to help :)
Ben
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [email protected] -- [email protected] -- [email protected] '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 02:16:41PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > Do programs compiled against a glibc with LFS (2.4.x kernel) support, and
> > > using that LFS support, work on kernel 2.2.x machines?
> >
> > Yes. Even glibc (2.2) compiled against kernel without LFS support has LFS
> > interface. Of course limited to 2GB files only.
>
> On some platforms...
>
> E.g. I can already access > 2gig files on my ultrasparc :)
And I can do so on Alpha, which has forever had 64-bit file sizes
also at the kernel side.
All glibc since 2.1 have user-visible interfaces of 64-bit
file-sizes, but the glibc/kernel interface depends on what
kernel headers have been used when compiling glibc.
Just for comparison, RedHat delivers glibc compiled with
2.3.nn/2.4.0 headers -> newer interfaces are supported.
> Ben
> / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
> ` [email protected] -- [email protected] -- [email protected] '
/Matti Aarnio
>
> Just for comparison, RedHat delivers glibc compiled with
> 2.3.nn/2.4.0 headers -> newer interfaces are supported.
>
Let's not even get started on what RH did or did not do. If everyone did
what RH did, then everyone else can just roll over and die, since there
will be no difference between dists.
On top of that, let's take this off the l-k list, since it has no bearing
here.
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [email protected] -- [email protected] -- [email protected] '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
In article <[email protected]>,
Ben Collins <[email protected]> wrote:
>work in our transition mechanisms. IOW, we don't have to just worry about
>1 architecture and 1 distribution, we have to make sure upgrades work,
>make sure things don't break, and ensure backward compatibility is retained
>for 5 architectures that have released already (new archs don't need a
>transisition obviously).
Euhm, we released 6 architectures (arm, alpha, i386, m68k, powerpc and sparc)
Wichert.
--
________________________________________________________________
/ Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \
| [email protected] http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ |
| 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
>> > Does kernel 2.4.x compile and run well for all of our supported archs?
>>
>> AFAIK yes. At least on all Debian archs.
BC> So, sparc, ultrasparc, i386 (with pcmcia support), alpha, arm, m68k,
BC> powerpc? I know that mips, s390 and hppa almost require a 2.4.0 kernel,
m68k is not ready AFAIK. There are some experimental patches that make some
modesl work in 2.4 (mostly Geert's).
--
Meelis Roos ([email protected])