Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #165706 > unrolled thread

x86_64 vs i386

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  x86_64 vs i386 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-20 18:50 +0100
    Re: x86_64 vs i386 Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2016-03-20 19:00 +0100
      Re: x86_64 vs i386 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-20 19:50 +0100
        Re: x86_64 vs i386 Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 20:00 +0100
          Re: x86_64 vs i386 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-20 20:10 +0100
          Stupid ERRATUM was Re: x86_64 vs i386 Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 20:10 +0100
        Re: x86_64 vs i386 The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2016-03-20 20:00 +0100
        Re: x86_64 vs i386 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-20 20:00 +0100
          Re: x86_64 vs i386 Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 20:20 +0100
        Re: x86_64 vs i386 Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 20:00 +0100
    Re: x86_64 vs i386 Christian Seiler <christian@iwakd.de> - 2016-03-20 19:00 +0100
      Re: x86_64 vs i386 Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2016-03-23 10:10 +0100
    Re: x86_64 vs i386 David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2016-03-20 20:40 +0100
      Re: x86_64 vs i386 Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2016-03-20 23:40 +0100
      Re: x86_64 vs i386 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-21 00:10 +0100
        Re: x86_64 vs i386 David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2016-03-21 05:30 +0100
          Re: x86_64 vs i386 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-21 09:50 +0100
      Re: x86_64 vs i386 Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2016-03-21 18:50 +0100
    Re: x86_64 vs i386 Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 16:00 +0100
      Re: x86_64 vs i386 Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-03-21 16:20 +0100
        Re: x86_64 vs i386 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-21 17:00 +0100
        Re: x86_64 vs i386 Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 00:30 +0100
          Re: x86_64 vs i386 Tom Browder <tom.browder@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 00:30 +0100
            Re: x86_64 vs i386 Tom Browder <tom.browder@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 01:10 +0100
        Re: x86_64 vs i386 Frank McCormick <debianlist@videotron.ca> - 2016-03-22 02:20 +0100
    Re: x86_64 vs i386 Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-03-21 16:00 +0100
      Re: x86_64 vs i386 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-21 17:00 +0100
        Re: x86_64 vs i386 The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2016-03-21 17:10 +0100
          Re: x86_64 vs i386 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-21 22:20 +0100
            Re: x86_64 vs i386 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-21 22:50 +0100
        Re: x86_64 vs i386 Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 00:30 +0100
          Re: x86_64 vs i386 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-22 02:10 +0100
            Re: x86_64 vs i386 Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 18:20 +0100
              Re: x86_64 vs i386 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-22 20:00 +0100
                Re: x86_64 vs i386 Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 23:50 +0100
                  Re: x86_64 vs i386  now firefoxish Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-23 00:20 +0100
                    Re: x86_64 vs i386  now firefoxish Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-23 03:30 +0100
                    Re: x86_64 vs i386 now firefoxish Marc Shapiro <marcnshap@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 03:40 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#165706 — x86_64 vs i386

Greetings all;

One of the problems I have is architecture related, synaptic thinks for 
some unfathomable to me reason, that this is an i386 machine.  But its 
not, currently running kernel 3.16.0-0.bpo.4-amd64, and no currently 
installed 32 bit application has a problem.

But now all the browser coders have thrown i386 machines under the bus, 
and I'm apparently stuck with the broken i386 stuff left behind.

How can I convince the package managers to search for x86_64 stuff in the 
repos and install it.

All my reload the repo databse errors point to it looking for 
non-existant i386 version of this or that, when obviously (to me at 
least) I see no valid reason for refusing to install x86_64 stuff.

Or should I bite the bullet, go buy 2 new drives and do a fresh x86_64 
install?


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#165707

On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 01:45:04PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> Greetings all;
> 
> One of the problems I have is architecture related, synaptic thinks for 
> some unfathomable to me reason, that this is an i386 machine.  But its 
> not, currently running kernel 3.16.0-0.bpo.4-amd64, and no currently 
> installed 32 bit application has a problem.

That implies that you have a 64 bit capable machine, running a
hand-selected 64 bit kernel, with a 32 bit userland.

This is a generally usable configuration, but ends up with problems like
what you are facing now.

> But now all the browser coders have thrown i386 machines under the bus, 
> and I'm apparently stuck with the broken i386 stuff left behind.
> 
> How can I convince the package managers to search for x86_64 stuff in the 
> repos and install it.

You need to convert your machine from i386 to x86_64.

There's an entry in the wiki:
https://wiki.debian.org/Migrate32To64Bit

but it doesn't look very trustworthy/up to date.

> All my reload the repo databse errors point to it looking for 
> non-existant i386 version of this or that, when obviously (to me at 
> least) I see no valid reason for refusing to install x86_64 stuff.
> 
> Or should I bite the bullet, go buy 2 new drives and do a fresh x86_64 
> install?

I would do that. If you have good backups and are willing to
spend a weekend or so in an indeterminate state, you could go
for the in-place conversion.

-dsr-

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165712

On Sunday 20 March 2016 13:54:09 Dan Ritter wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 01:45:04PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > Greetings all;
> >
> > One of the problems I have is architecture related, synaptic thinks
> > for some unfathomable to me reason, that this is an i386 machine. 
> > But its not, currently running kernel 3.16.0-0.bpo.4-amd64, and no
> > currently installed 32 bit application has a problem.
>
> That implies that you have a 64 bit capable machine, running a
> hand-selected 64 bit kernel, with a 32 bit userland.

Quad core amd phenom.

> This is a generally usable configuration, but ends up with problems
> like what you are facing now.
>
> > But now all the browser coders have thrown i386 machines under the
> > bus, and I'm apparently stuck with the broken i386 stuff left
> > behind.
> >
> > How can I convince the package managers to search for x86_64 stuff
> > in the repos and install it.
>
> You need to convert your machine from i386 to x86_64.
>
> There's an entry in the wiki:
> https://wiki.debian.org/Migrate32To64Bit
>
> but it doesn't look very trustworthy/up to date.
>
> > All my reload the repo databse errors point to it looking for
> > non-existant i386 version of this or that, when obviously (to me at
> > least) I see no valid reason for refusing to install x86_64 stuff.
> >
> > Or should I bite the bullet, go buy 2 new drives and do a fresh
> > x86_64 install?
>
> I would do that. If you have good backups and are willing to
> spend a weekend or so in an indeterminate state, you could go
> for the in-place conversion.
>
> -dsr-

Well, to both of you, I did that, it wanted to remove iceweasel, which it 
did, but to install the 64 bit version pulls in around 125 new 64 bit 
files, which the i386 versions in turn cannot be removed without ripping 
out everything.

So now to grab the iso's, hopefully either chromium or konquerer can find  
and download them.

And since all this is also going to bring in systemd, and I've not a clue 
if the real app, one that must run, the sim version of linuxcnc will run 
on a jessie install. But I'm about to ask on that list.  Looks like I go 
get a couple commodity hard drives though.  So I'll be back whenever I 
have it all in hand.

Thanks, both of you, Dan and Christian.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165715

On Sunday 20 March 2016 18:43:03 Gene Heskett wrote:
> And since all this is also going to bring in systemd, and I've not a clue
> if the real app, one that must run, the sim version of linuxcnc will run
> on a jessie install.

You can install 32 bit Wheezy - though I agree that I wouldn't at this stage.  
And you can install Jessie without systemd, if you want to do so.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165720

On Sunday 20 March 2016 14:53:02 Lisi Reisz wrote:

> On Sunday 20 March 2016 18:43:03 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > And since all this is also going to bring in systemd, and I've not a
> > clue if the real app, one that must run, the sim version of linuxcnc
> > will run on a jessie install.
>
> You can install 32 bit Wheezy - though I agree that I wouldn't at this
> stage. And you can install Jessie without systemd, if you want to do
> so.
>
> Lisi

I just asked if the lcnc guys have respun their install image for 64 bit 
jessie, in which case I'll probably use it.  But there is some reticence 
in doing the 64 bit for the real machinery control as so far its been a 
quite measurable amount slower, and the real time patches I don't think 
have fully caught up with the 64 bit scene.  Even building it for PAE 
can mess up the realtime performance. That has been driving us toward 
spending a couple hundred on FPGA interface cards that can do thing by 
themselves for a millisecond as they can do the step pulse very steadily 
at 10 microseconds a pulse, where the fastest we have logged in software 
has been a fairly broad error in timing at 25 microseconds per step.
If someplace in the install, it asks, how do I recognize that the 
question refers to systemd as opposed to the tried and proven init?

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165721 — Stupid ERRATUM was Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Sunday 20 March 2016 18:53:02 Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Sunday 20 March 2016 18:43:03 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > And since all this is also going to bring in systemd, and I've not a clue
> > if the real app, one that must run, the sim version of linuxcnc will run
> > on a jessie install.
>
> You can install 32 bit 

I meant 64 bit, of course.  Senility creeps on apace. :-(  Stupid fingers.

Lisi

> Wheezy - though I agree that I wouldn't at this 
> stage. And you can install Jessie without systemd, if you want to do so.
>
> Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165716

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2016-03-20 at 14:51, Lisi Reisz wrote:

> On Sunday 20 March 2016 18:43:03 Gene Heskett wrote:
> 
>> And since all this is also going to bring in systemd,
> 
> Why??

Because a new Debian install, with current install media, installs
systemd. You can go out of your way and take extra steps to remove it
and install sysvinit again, if you know what you're doing - I think even
before rebooting into the newly-installed system - but it's not
sufficiently trivial and straightforward for most people to consider
worth tackling. (Even then, systemd has still been brought in, even if
you've kicked it straight back out again.)

That's unless things have changed since the last news I heard on this
front, but since I did an install (either of latest stable or of current
testing, I forget which) within the past month and did not see any
simpler way of installing without systemd, I don't really expect that
they have.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165717

On Sunday 20 March 2016 14:51:03 Lisi Reisz wrote:

> On Sunday 20 March 2016 18:43:03 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > And since all this is also going to bring in systemd,
>
> Why??
>
> Lisi

How is that avoidable?

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165723

On Sunday 20 March 2016 18:59:14 Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 20 March 2016 14:51:03 Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Sunday 20 March 2016 18:43:03 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > And since all this is also going to bring in systemd,
> >
> > Why??
> >
> > Lisi
>
> How is that avoidable?
>
> Cheers, Gene Heskett

https://debiantalk.wordpress.com/2015/10/04/you-can-install-debian-8-without-systemd/

Or install and immediately remove it:
http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/How_to_remove_systemd_from_a_Debian_jessie/sid_installation

I was just girding my loins to try!

Of course, it might be somewhat too complicated when coupled with this:

https://forum.linuxcnc.org/forum/9-installing-linuxcnc/29764-how-to-install-debian-8-2-jessie-and-linuxcnc2-7

But since you would install Jessie completely first, it ought to be OK.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165718

On Sunday 20 March 2016 18:43:03 Gene Heskett wrote:
> And since all this is also going to bring in systemd,

Why??

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165708

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 03/20/2016 06:45 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> One of the problems I have is architecture related, synaptic thinks for 
> some unfathomable to me reason, that this is an i386 machine.  But its 
> not, currently running kernel 3.16.0-0.bpo.4-amd64, and no currently 
> installed 32 bit application has a problem.
> 
> But now all the browser coders have thrown i386 machines under the bus, 
> and I'm apparently stuck with the broken i386 stuff left behind.
> 
> How can I convince the package managers to search for x86_64 stuff in the 
> repos and install it.

Since you are using a backports 3.16 kernel, I assume you are using
Wheezy, which already understands Multi-Arch. In that case, just do

dpkg --add-architecture amd64

That will add 'amd64' as a secondary architecture to your system and
you can install packages from there (at least those that are
co-installable with your current set of packages).

Note that you need to do an "apt-get update" after this change.

Regards,
Christian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165862

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sun, 20 Mar 2016 18:52:03 +0100
Christian Seiler <christian@iwakd.de> wrote:

> On 03/20/2016 06:45 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > One of the problems I have is architecture related, synaptic thinks
> > for some unfathomable to me reason, that this is an i386 machine.
> > But its not, currently running kernel 3.16.0-0.bpo.4-amd64, and no
> > currently installed 32 bit application has a problem.
> > 
> > But now all the browser coders have thrown i386 machines under the
> > bus, and I'm apparently stuck with the broken i386 stuff left
> > behind.
> > 
> > How can I convince the package managers to search for x86_64 stuff
> > in the repos and install it.  
> 
> Since you are using a backports 3.16 kernel, I assume you are using
> Wheezy, which already understands Multi-Arch. In that case, just do
> 
> dpkg --add-architecture amd64

He appears to already have amd64 enabled- hence his ability to run an
amd64 kernel. He also speaks of manually specifying amd64 package
installation, implying he already has that architecture enabled- his
problem is the fact that installing amd64 versions of all his binaries
would result in him losing all his i386 binaries.

Synaptic thinks he has an i386 machine post amd64 installation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165726

On 03/20/2016 10:45 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> One of the problems I have is architecture related, synaptic thinks for
> some unfathomable to me reason, that this is an i386 machine.  But its
> not, currently running kernel 3.16.0-0.bpo.4-amd64, and no currently
> installed 32 bit application has a problem.
>
> But now all the browser coders have thrown i386 machines under the bus,
> and I'm apparently stuck with the broken i386 stuff left behind.
>
> How can I convince the package managers to search for x86_64 stuff in the
> repos and install it.
>
> All my reload the repo databse errors point to it looking for
> non-existant i386 version of this or that, when obviously (to me at
> least) I see no valid reason for refusing to install x86_64 stuff.
>
> Or should I bite the bullet, go buy 2 new drives and do a fresh x86_64
> install?

I would do a backup-wipe-install-restore cycle.  (Yes, I'm predictable.)


I typically grab CD 1 with my desktop of choice, installing or leaving 
out the desktop as desired when installing on a given computer:

 
http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/archive/7.9.0/amd64/jigdo-cd/debian-7.9.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.jigdo


For those who prefer KDE or LXDE:

 
http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/archive/7.9.0/amd64/jigdo-cd/debian-7.9.0-amd64-kde-CD-1.jigdo

 
http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/archive/7.9.0/amd64/jigdo-cd/debian-7.9.0-amd64-lxde-CD-1.jigdo


I believe the standard CD 1 defaults to Gnome 3:

 
http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/archive/7.9.0/amd64/jigdo-cd/debian-7.9.0-amd64-CD-1.jigdo


Of course, if you have a local cache for packages, the net installer 
saves bandwidth and might age better:

 
http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/archive/7.9.0/amd64/jigdo-cd/debian-7.9.0-amd64-netinst.jigdo


I'm curious about "2 new drives".  What's the intended purpose of the 
machine?  What drive(s) are already installed?  Any spares on the shelf? 
   And, what about the USB 3.0 flash-as-system-drive trick?


David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165733

On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 12:35:54PM -0700, David Christensen wrote:
> On 03/20/2016 10:45 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >Or should I bite the bullet, go buy 2 new drives and do a fresh x86_64
> >install?

> I'm curious about "2 new drives".  What's the intended purpose of the
> machine?  What drive(s) are already installed?  Any spares on the
> shelf?   And, what about the USB 3.0 flash-as-system-drive trick?

My assumption was that Gene will set up two new disks in an
mdadm RAID 1, install a new system to them, and thus be able to
fall back to his old system with only a reboot.

Then, after some weeks or months of contentment with his new
disks, the old ones will get wiped and turned into backup
storage or something similar.

-dsr-

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165735

On Sunday 20 March 2016 15:35:54 David Christensen wrote:

> On 03/20/2016 10:45 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > One of the problems I have is architecture related, synaptic thinks
> > for some unfathomable to me reason, that this is an i386 machine. 
> > But its not, currently running kernel 3.16.0-0.bpo.4-amd64, and no
> > currently installed 32 bit application has a problem.
> >
> > But now all the browser coders have thrown i386 machines under the
> > bus, and I'm apparently stuck with the broken i386 stuff left
> > behind.
> >
> > How can I convince the package managers to search for x86_64 stuff
> > in the repos and install it.
> >
> > All my reload the repo databse errors point to it looking for
> > non-existant i386 version of this or that, when obviously (to me at
> > least) I see no valid reason for refusing to install x86_64 stuff.
> >
> > Or should I bite the bullet, go buy 2 new drives and do a fresh
> > x86_64 install?
>
> I would do a backup-wipe-install-restore cycle.  (Yes, I'm
> predictable.)
>
>
> I typically grab CD 1 with my desktop of choice, installing or leaving
> out the desktop as desired when installing on a given computer:
>
>
> http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/archive/7.9.0/amd64/jigdo-cd/debian-
>7.9.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.jigdo
>
>
> For those who prefer KDE or LXDE:
>
>
> http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/archive/7.9.0/amd64/jigdo-cd/debian-
>7.9.0-amd64-kde-CD-1.jigdo
>
>
> http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/archive/7.9.0/amd64/jigdo-cd/debian-
>7.9.0-amd64-lxde-CD-1.jigdo
>
>
> I believe the standard CD 1 defaults to Gnome 3:
>
>
> http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/archive/7.9.0/amd64/jigdo-cd/debian-
>7.9.0-amd64-CD-1.jigdo
>
>
> Of course, if you have a local cache for packages, the net installer
> saves bandwidth and might age better:
>
>
> http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/archive/7.9.0/amd64/jigdo-cd/debian-
>7.9.0-amd64-netinst.jigdo
>
>
> I'm curious about "2 new drives".  What's the intended purpose of the
> machine?  What drive(s) are already installed?  Any spares on the
> shelf?

Some, but with 60k plus spinning hours on them. 

> And, what about the USB 3.0 flash-as-system-drive trick? 
>
In reverse order, this old Asus mobo doesn't boot from usb.  Old also 
means its sata is 3Gb at best, and the USB is 2.1 max. 100 meg Cat5 to 
the printer is faster.

I haven't found a new mobo that doesn't send everything in this machine 
to the recycle bin.  So I'd be out another $400 in installed cards as 
this board is all pci. 4 slots, 7 sata, 7 usb's, and my usb tree looks 
like a weeping willow, most of which would be obsolete too. 1 4 port 
external hub, 1 7 port external hub, a 10 meter hub to some stuff in the 
basement with a 7 port on the end of it.  And a pci video card, a pci 
firewire, and an hdPC3000 digital tv card.  That stuff is all toast when 
the bus turns into pci-e.

Drive #2 will be a new drive for amanda to use, after I run a mktapes 
script on it to make about 60 ea 20+Gig virtual tapes.  Drive 1 will be 
the new install, which will get most of my home dir copied to it, then 
the former drive 1 will be remounted as /dev/sdc so once the copies have 
been made, and reformatted so half the drive is /home and half is /opt.  
Let drive 1 BE the system drive, but I want my stuff better isolated.  I 
did have 4 drives in here at one time, but the drives got bigger faster 
than my own storage needs, which are now occasionally feeling the pinch.

Running the trinity gui, and quite a boat load of other stuff including 
my web page out of /opt, that would be one less recovery worry when a 
drive upchucks.
>
> David


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165743

On 03/20/2016 04:08 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 20 March 2016 15:35:54 David Christensen wrote:
>> I'm curious about "2 new drives".  What's the intended purpose of the
>> machine?  What drive(s) are already installed?  Any spares on the
>> shelf?
>
> Some, but with 60k plus spinning hours on them.
>
>> And, what about the USB 3.0 flash-as-system-drive trick?
>>
> In reverse order, this old Asus mobo doesn't boot from usb.  Old also
> means its sata is 3Gb at best, and the USB is 2.1 max. 100 meg Cat5 to
> the printer is faster.
>
> I haven't found a new mobo that doesn't send everything in this machine
> to the recycle bin.  So I'd be out another $400 in installed cards as
> this board is all pci. 4 slots, 7 sata, 7 usb's, and my usb tree looks
> like a weeping willow, most of which would be obsolete too. 1 4 port
> external hub, 1 7 port external hub, a 10 meter hub to some stuff in the
> basement with a 7 port on the end of it.  And a pci video card, a pci
> firewire, and an hdPC3000 digital tv card.  That stuff is all toast when
> the bus turns into pci-e.
>
> Drive #2 will be a new drive for amanda to use, after I run a mktapes
> script on it to make about 60 ea 20+Gig virtual tapes.  Drive 1 will be
> the new install, which will get most of my home dir copied to it, then
> the former drive 1 will be remounted as /dev/sdc so once the copies have
> been made, and reformatted so half the drive is /home and half is /opt.
> Let drive 1 BE the system drive, but I want my stuff better isolated.  I
> did have 4 drives in here at one time, but the drives got bigger faster
> than my own storage needs, which are now occasionally feeling the pinch.
>
> Running the trinity gui, and quite a boat load of other stuff including
> my web page out of /opt, that would be one less recovery worry when a
> drive upchucks.

So, "everything plus the kitchen sink".  (Did someone mention LinuxCNC?) 
  ;-)


A few years back, I built a new high-end desktop/ low-end server and 
tried consolidating everything into virtual machines running on that one 
box.  One powerful, quiet machine was nice when everything worked and I 
wasn't messing with it.  But when something broke or I did mess with it, 
I frequently ran into circular dependencies and had to fix and/or mess 
with everything.  While doing so, I was dead in the water.  It was a 
memorable lesson in "too many eggs in one basket."


Now I'm running three boxes locally -- one desktop, one file server, and 
one maintenance/ backup/ archive/ image server.  For you, I'd recommend 
trying that arrangement plus one more box for your machine shop.  I 
don't know what region you're in (I'm near Silicon Valley), but I see 
used computers at good prices on Craig's List fairly often.


David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165756

On Monday 21 March 2016 00:20:28 David Christensen wrote:

> On 03/20/2016 04:08 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Sunday 20 March 2016 15:35:54 David Christensen wrote:
> >> I'm curious about "2 new drives".  What's the intended purpose of
> >> the machine?  What drive(s) are already installed?  Any spares on
> >> the shelf?
> >
> > Some, but with 60k plus spinning hours on them.
> >
> >> And, what about the USB 3.0 flash-as-system-drive trick?
> >
> > In reverse order, this old Asus mobo doesn't boot from usb.  Old
> > also means its sata is 3Gb at best, and the USB is 2.1 max. 100 meg
> > Cat5 to the printer is faster.
> >
> > I haven't found a new mobo that doesn't send everything in this
> > machine to the recycle bin.  So I'd be out another $400 in installed
> > cards as this board is all pci. 4 slots, 7 sata, 7 usb's, and my usb
> > tree looks like a weeping willow, most of which would be obsolete
> > too. 1 4 port external hub, 1 7 port external hub, a 10 meter hub to
> > some stuff in the basement with a 7 port on the end of it.  And a
> > pci video card, a pci firewire, and an hdPC3000 digital tv card. 
> > That stuff is all toast when the bus turns into pci-e.
> >
> > Drive #2 will be a new drive for amanda to use, after I run a
> > mktapes script on it to make about 60 ea 20+Gig virtual tapes. 
> > Drive 1 will be the new install, which will get most of my home dir
> > copied to it, then the former drive 1 will be remounted as /dev/sdc
> > so once the copies have been made, and reformatted so half the drive
> > is /home and half is /opt. Let drive 1 BE the system drive, but I
> > want my stuff better isolated.  I did have 4 drives in here at one
> > time, but the drives got bigger faster than my own storage needs,
> > which are now occasionally feeling the pinch.
> >
> > Running the trinity gui, and quite a boat load of other stuff
> > including my web page out of /opt, that would be one less recovery
> > worry when a drive upchucks.
>
> So, "everything plus the kitchen sink".  (Did someone mention
> LinuxCNC?) ;-)
>
>
> A few years back, I built a new high-end desktop/ low-end server and
> tried consolidating everything into virtual machines running on that
> one box.  One powerful, quiet machine was nice when everything worked
> and I wasn't messing with it.  But when something broke or I did mess
> with it, I frequently ran into circular dependencies and had to fix
> and/or mess with everything.  While doing so, I was dead in the water.
>  It was a memorable lesson in "too many eggs in one basket."

There is that too.  But I am physical space limited as this is a former 
childs bedroom in a 3BR crackerbox.  So amanda as server running on this 
machine, backs up everything on this machine, and amanda clients on the 
other 3 function as slaves to backup the important stuff on the other 
three in the wee hours of the night. I wrote some wrapper scripts that 
help with the housekeeping, so theoretically I can do a bare metal to a 
new drive recovery once a bare install is done, and restore to the exact 
state it was in when amanda ran, so the only thing potentially missing 
would be the emails that arrived after amanda ran. 

> Now I'm running three boxes locally -- one desktop, one file server,
> and one maintenance/ backup/ archive/ image server.  For you, I'd
> recommend trying that arrangement plus one more box for your machine
> shop.  I don't know what region you're in (I'm near Silicon Valley),
> but I see used computers at good prices on Craig's List fairly often.
>
And I'm running 4 normally, this one as the swiss army knife, and 3 more. 
1 for each of the cnc machines. But unless I actually have them doing 
something that needs watching with a hand and finger near the e-stop 
button, I do all the coding and update maintenance on those from here as 
this is the only chair my back is comfortable enough that the pain 
doesn't distract from what I am attempting to do.  Everything I do is 
generally done in my home directory or subdir thereof, with an sshfs 
connection to the other 3 from here, and an ssh -Y session to a terminal 
on each.  For me, that works well.

Since I don't run actual machinery from this one, and I have been assured 
that the LinuxCNC simulator runs just fine on a 64 bit jessie install, 
that is what I'll do when I have all the ducks lined up.  That will take 
a few days as I'm also slowly putting the basement back together after 
$13G's worth of jackhammer work to control water ingress and re-inforce 
a wall was done last week.  About a 100 lb bag of cement dust to wash 
off everything washable, sort the rest to the landfill, and wrestle all 
the shelving back into place in addition to putting 4" of styro between 
the 4" i-beams & new paneling over them, I think at the rate I can 
accomplish all that, I have the rest of my lifes work laid out in front 
of me. :)  Today, once I get started, I take the drain assemble off the 
laundry tub and take the whole thing to Lowes to see if I can come up 
with something that doesn't come unplugged and leaks every time the tub 
gets moved 1/4", I have a dehumidifier thats doing nothing but 
recycleing what winds up on the floor from its running, which is 
supposed to be going down that drain.  I've had 2 or 3 different p-trap 
setups on it over the last 26 years and none of them have Just 
Worked(TM) for more than 6 months at a time.  Perhaps there is a 
corrugated pipe available that will allow more flexability without 
opening a joint when it moves. Little stuff like that, doesn't leave me 
any time to prowl the bars at all, darnit! Which is a good thing as I'm 
also diabetic and alky is instant sugar. :(

Such is life at 81 yo. :)
>
> David


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165783

On 2016-03-20, David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> wrote:
>
> I would do a backup-wipe-install-restore cycle.  (Yes, I'm predictable.)
>
LOL.

-- 
Hypertext--or should I say the ideology of hypertext?--is ultrademocratic and
so entirely in harmony with the demagogic appeals to cultural democracy that
accompany (and distract one’s attention from) the ever-tightening grip of 
plutocratic capitalism. - Susan Sontag

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165769

On Monday 21 March 2016 14:50:33 Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > But now all the browser coders have thrown i386 machines under the bus,
> > and I'm apparently stuck with the broken i386 stuff left behind.
>
> What do you mean by that?
>
>
>         Stefan "who still uses 32bit userland pretty much everywhere"

I still administer several i386 machines.  I think that Gene must be referring 
to Google Chrome, which has indeed "thrown i386 machines under the bus", and 
is a browser.

I have not so far come across any other problem.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165771

> to Google Chrome, which has indeed "thrown i386 machines under the bus", and 

What do you mean by that?
There won't be any new versions of Debian's i386 version of the
chromium package?


        Stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web