[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Missing 64-bits packages: Search for them or compile them?



Hello Capri Corny & list,

Sorry about not having answered the previous mails in this thread, but I
got the impression that you got everything figured out correctly
already. :-)

On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 11:33:15AM +0200, Capri Corny wrote:
>      >As far as I know, aufs, cloop and other critical for the boot kernel
>      modules
>      >are now compiled within the kernel (and are not loaded by the initrd
>      anymore).
>      >So all the critical components which could have a big performance
>      impact as
>      >(>4GB memory, fast I/O and context switching, 64 bits guest virtual
>      machines support,...)
>      >already exists in the 64 bits kernel created by Klaus in his Knoppix
>      6.5 version.
>      >As an example I run VMware workstation with 64 bits guest without any
>      problem
>      >(besides the shared /mnt/hgfs folder which I still cannot get to work
>      properly... yet)
> 
>    I completely agree with you about the practicality and efficiency of going
>    the hybrid route to 64-bits. This is not about merely boosting Knoppix by
>    employing 64- bits, for that purpose standard Knoppix is very suitable.�
>    And personally,�I do _not_ want� Klaus to spend his precious time
>    maintaining two similar versions.

Thanks, and you are right, I simply could not do this, since I hardly
manage to keep the DVD and CD version up-to-date in parallel. Luckily,
language switchig is easy, so the englich and german version only differ
in (basically) two bytes in the bootloader configuration.

>    As for aufs, also the tools are needed for development, and the status of
>    debian aufs packages seem a bit unclear to me.

I wasn't even aware that there are debian aufs packages, until you
mentioned them. ;-)

Actually, you probably don't need the aufs tools for development, just
the kernel module. When using the "noplink" option, you also don't need
the aufs-tools scripts in order to copy back hardlinks on umount.

I'm using aufs2-standalone directly from the GIT repository,
Instructions at http://aufs.sf.net/. The 2.6.39.2 kernel source
including cloop and aufs both built in will be dowloadable from the
http://debian-knoppix.alioth.debian.org/ repository as packages soon,
check for
linux-headers-2.6.39.2_2.6.39.2-10.00.Custom_i386.deb
linux-source-2.6.39.2_2.6.39.2-10.00.Custom_all.deb 

In order to build the 64-bit version, just change the CPU type in
.config, and answer the additional questions in "make oldconfig" (XEN
etc.).

>      >PS: As a side note, I still do not see the need to have every single
>      binary compiled in 64 bits
>      >anymore beside the academic interest and the fun to create a "pure" 64
>      bits Knoppix version.
>      >I much prefer to have more apps available (on a limited size DVD) and
>      recompile or download
>      >the few applications or services that I need to run as fast as possible
>      since 32 and 64 bits
>      >applications can co-exist with a 64 bits kernel. Please don't get me
>      wrong we all like performance
>      >but I think that with the 64bits kernel of the new Knoppix 6.5 we
>      already have what we need.
>      >BTW, recompiling applicatons is much easier than it looks like:
>      configure, make, make install.
> 
>    Again, I completely agree! In the actual case, it seems that I can get
>    away with a modest compilation effort and still be set up "purely"�
>    64-bits.

I think so, too. Apart from a few packages that have no 64bit version,
the Knoppix startup scripts plus cloop and aufs work exactly the same in
a 64bit version. You may want to check /etc and /home/knoppix for
changed configuration files, though.

>    But this is a very basic system, package selection from CD Knoppix + a few
>    additions, most notably�VMware, R and MySQL.� And at least with�R, the
>    effort pays off. It also seems to do with VMware, everything seems to run
>    perfectly well, but I use rather simple setups there.�
>    For a plethora of applications, if 32-bits versions run well in the
>    64-bits system, I'm just happy to use them.� This is not about puritanism,
>    but hassle-free 64-bits when you need it. :-)

Glad to hear that. :-)

Regards
-Klaus


Reply to: