ch as this isn't
a production machine. I'll be sure to make frequent backups. I've found
a few sites that give insight into the SMART data, and Ken it starting
to give me a headache now. Thanks for the insight folks.
Mykal Funk
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Mike McCarty wrote:
> Mykal Funk wrote:
>
>> While running a compile of GCC I got the following error:
>>
>
> Oh, if you have a distro which can use SMART, and your
> disc is SMART capable, you can ask it.
>
> # smartctl -i /dev/hda
>
This command sho
Does anyone know if this is an error that can be safely ignored? Or will
it affect the build in some way? If it will affect the build how would I
go about fixing the problem?
Mykal Funk
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.h
William Immendorf wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Mykal Funk wrote:
>
>> I can say it isn't the hardware. I recompiled the kernel with
>> CONFIG_HZ_100 option set, then rebooted with that kernel. I started the
>> glibc build from 5.7.1 and 12 hours later
bc build from 5.7.1 and 12 hours later under high load the clock is
still accurate. Problem fixed. Thanks for the ideas, folks. They helped
me to learn which is the most important thing in my book.
e
Mykal Funk
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromsc
. The 486 is for play and learning. It's been a
while since I built a LFS system.
Mykal Funk
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Mykal Funk wrote:
>
>
>> I would hate to have to 'nice' the process. An SBU equals about 150
>> minutes.
>>
>
> That is a *really* slow system. My 5 year old P4 has an SBU of 132.5
> *seconds*. I'm not sure wh
e to 'nice' the process. An SBU equals about 150
minutes. It takes long enough to compile without being 'nice'.
> Does the clock moving only a tick or two during the entire build break it?
>
No, it doesn't seem to break the build. It's just
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Mykal Funk wrote:
>
>
>> I replaced the battery and the behavior didn't change. The time loss
>> occurs only under high load. When uptime reports a high load average,
>> the system loses time like crazy. When it is just sitting doing noth
> replace it or temporarily swap in a good one to see it it helps.
>
I replaced the battery and the behavior didn't change. The time loss
occurs only under high load. When uptime reports a high load average,
the system loses time like crazy. When it is just sitting doing n
Mike McCarty wrote:
> Mykal Funk wrote:
>
>> I know the cmos battery is running low on this machine. But will the
>>
>
> The clock does not run on the battery unless the machine is shut down
> and turned off. While the power supply is on, the clock runs
uild? I don't like
> the idea
> > > of finding out towards the end that it will. That is my main
> concern.
> > > Should I ignore the clock issue? Is this something I should
> concern
> > > myself about? Any advice would be welcome.
>
he idea
of finding out towards the end that it will. That is my main concern.
Should I ignore the clock issue? Is this something I should concern
myself about? Any advice would be welcome.
Thanks in Advance,
Mykal Funk
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://ww
Ken Moffat wrote:
> 2009/12/7 Mykal Funk :
>
>> Ken Moffat wrote:
>>
>>> Do you have CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=y ? If so, try turning it off.
>>>
> whoops, if not try turning it on.
>
>>> I'm not sure where it appears in m
Ken Moffat wrote:
> 2009/12/7 Mykal Funk :
>
>> Thanks for the pointers. Once I got the configuration right it would go
>> all the way to loading Init. However, it is now givining an error
>> "Inconsistency detected by ld.so: rtld.c: 1180: dl_main: Asser
sistency detected by ld.so: rtld.c: 1180: dl_main: Assertion
`(void *) ph->p_vaddr == _rtld_local._dl_sysinfo_dso’ failed!" and the
kernel panics. I'm considering recompiling Glibc but am unsure if that
would fix the problem or cause more.
Thanks in advance,
Mykal Funk
--
http://lin
ed the kernel config and
it includes support for reiserfs, which is what the LFS 5 is on.
Any ideas on what to do next?
Thanks in Advance,
Mykal Funk
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
ple days to see if your suggestions work. And yes, I
think I left this one a bit too long. But I like a challenge. Thats why
I bother with an old 486 in the first place.
Thanks,
Mykal Funk
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.ht
osix-2, if that helps. I've googled
around and haven't found anything. I can't get this kernel to compile
and I'm not sure why.
Thanks in Advance,
Mykal Funk
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscr
19 matches
Mail list logo
