Re: [gentoo-amd64] startx fails with backtrace and no errors

2009-04-09 Thread Volker Armin Hemmann
On Freitag 10 April 2009, Daiajo Tibdixious wrote: > This is a new system, I've never manged to start X yet at all. > > Initially I had lots of (failed to load module) errors for various > modules, & "module ABI major version (1) doesn't match the server's > version (4)" > > got rid of all of the "

[gentoo-amd64] startx fails with backtrace and no errors

2009-04-09 Thread Daiajo Tibdixious
This is a new system, I've never manged to start X yet at all. Initially I had lots of (failed to load module) errors for various modules, & "module ABI major version (1) doesn't match the server's version (4)" got rid of all of the "failed to load module" errors & turned the ABI error into a war

Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: grub and maximum kernel file size

2009-04-09 Thread Branko Badrljica
Duncan wrote: Did you try md-mod,start_dirty_degraded=1 (AFAIK this applies to RAID-4/5/6 only)? No What about listing the appropriate component devices, as so: md=d1,/dev/sda1,/dev/sdb1,/dev/sdc1... ? Yes. I had it by default. Without it never seemed to work. With it, it worked _so

[gentoo-amd64] Re: grub and maximum kernel file size

2009-04-09 Thread Duncan
flockm...@gmx.at posted 200904092105.19617.flockm...@gmx.at, excerpted below, on Thu, 09 Apr 2009 21:05:19 +0200: >> Regardless, most firmware RAIDs can be >> configured JBOD and run with the more standard md/mdp kernel RAID >> anyway. >> >> > this is only true for raids with the old 0.90 superbl

[gentoo-amd64] Re: grub and maximum kernel file size

2009-04-09 Thread Duncan
Branko Badrljica posted 49de51a0.7010...@avtomatika.com, excerpted below, on Thu, 09 Apr 2009 21:50:56 +0200: >> Yes, for LVM, no, for RAID, at least md/mdp kernel RAID. > In theory, yes. In practice, it is unpredictable and flakey. I lost more > than a day with a system that used to be able to

Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: grub and maximum kernel file size

2009-04-09 Thread flockmock
On Thursday 09 April 2009 20:36:37 Duncan wrote: > Branko Badrljica posted > 49de4433.3010...@avtomatika.com, excerpted below, on Thu, 09 Apr 2009 > > 20:53:39 +0200: > > I need initramfs to be able to boot from RAID. Same for LVM. > > Yes, for LVM, no, for RAID, at least md/mdp kernel RAID. DM b

Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: grub and maximum kernel file size

2009-04-09 Thread Branko Badrljica
Duncan wrote: Yes, for LVM, no, for RAID, at least md/mdp kernel RAID. In theory, yes. In practice, it is unpredictable and flakey. I lost more than a day with a system that used to be able to autoassemble the RAID in kernel and boot it and then simply "changed its mind" and no matter what I

[gentoo-amd64] Re: grub and maximum kernel file size

2009-04-09 Thread Duncan
Branko Badrljica posted 49de4433.3010...@avtomatika.com, excerpted below, on Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:53:39 +0200: > I need initramfs to be able to boot from RAID. Same for LVM. Yes, for LVM, no, for RAID, at least md/mdp kernel RAID. DM based firmware RAID is different, and not something I'd trust

Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: grub and maximum kernel file size

2009-04-09 Thread Branko Badrljica
Duncan wrote: No initramfs seriously decomplicates things. But who am I to say? It's your system, not mine. It's worth considering tho. I need initramfs to be able to boot from RAID. Same for LVM. It is also useful for uvesafb. Uvesafb driver is finally the one that gives me nice hi

Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: grub and maximum kernel file size

2009-04-09 Thread Drake Donahue
- Original Message - From: "Duncan" <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> To: Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 1:36 PM Subject: [gentoo-amd64] Re: grub and maximum kernel file size flockm...@gmx.at posted 200904091859.12109.flockm...@gmx.at, excerpted below, on Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:59:11 +0200: th

[gentoo-amd64] Re: grub and maximum kernel file size

2009-04-09 Thread Duncan
flockm...@gmx.at posted 200904091859.12109.flockm...@gmx.at, excerpted below, on Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:59:11 +0200: > thanks for the answer, i'm already running grub-0.97-r9. perhaps it is > time to switch back to good old lilo, or to play with grub2 ;) I don't know then. Did you check the bugs m

Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: grub and maximum kernel file size

2009-04-09 Thread Branko Badrljica
flockm...@gmx.at wrote: thanks for the answer, i'm already running grub-0.97-r9. perhaps it is time to switch back to good old lilo, or to play with grub2 ;) Or perhaps not. I have 12+ MB kernels ( with internal initramfs for v86d and modules ) and external initramfs loaded with grub w

Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: grub and maximum kernel file size

2009-04-09 Thread flockmock
On Thursday 09 April 2009 08:45:30 Duncan wrote: > flockm...@gmx.at posted 200904090657.08422.flockm...@gmx.at, excerpted > > below, on Thu, 09 Apr 2009 06:57:08 +0200: > > i have a quite big initramfs, kernel size is approx. 5,7 MB. Adding new > > things to my initramfs does not work, because gru