Re: UP1100 and disk size
On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 17:23 -0500, Robert Funnell wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 16:03 -0500, WRJ Funnell wrote:
> ...
> > > I currently have SRM 5.6-9. I have found a 5.6-13 at
> > > www.microway.com (and at www.hungrycats.org). Does anyone know if
> > > there's a more recent version, or whether upgrading will solve my
> > > disk-size problem?
> >
> > What kernel are you running? If you have the standard woody kernel (I
> > think 2.4.18), that had trouble with large disks, on i386 too. Sarge
> > kernels should be fine.
>
> Embarrassingly, I'm using 2.2. Upgrading the kernel is next on my
> to-do list. If I understand correctly, I should upgrade to 2.4, then
> upgrade to sarge, then upgrade to 2.6. I'm at the point of being
> confused by the fact that kernel images for both 2.4.18-5.0.1 and
> 2.4.18-15 are listed.
No need to be embarrassed. I too still run 2.2, though with sarge; you
can upgrade to sarge and then to 2.6 just fine. (I've had trouble with
the network under 2.6.8.)
> > I recently built 2.6.8 for nautilus, and posted the .config diffs here
> > (Nov. 1), in case you're interested. (1100 is also nautilus, right? :-)
>
> Well, it's nautilus but uses SRM so uses the generic kernel. At least
> that's what I was told back in 2000 when I installed it.
Right, then it can use initrds and the generic kernel, no problem.
> Glad to hear the disk problem is likely kernel and not SRM. Is there
> any point in upgrading SRM? Is there any information available about
> what differences there were in the different versions?
No idea, sorry. (I still use APB/PAL. :-)
-Adam
--
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6
Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe!
http://www.take6.com/albums/greatesthits.html
Reply to: