Request kernel with pae

avogatro · 2010-03-23 06:15:49

Hi
More and more people have more then 3 GB RAM.
Yes they can use the 64bit kernel, but could we have a core kernel26 with Physical Address Extension?
maybe kernel26-pae.

At this moment I have to rebuild kernel26 nvidia and Virtualbox.
Because of the update frequency for kernel(which is very good), I must block the kernelupdate.

I hope such a kernel is still "simple" ...

ngoonee · 2010-03-23 06:50:49

Please search before you post. This has been brought up many times before, and there are good reasons not to.

avogatro · 2010-03-23 20:09:18

Yes 2007.
I think i686 will not disapear after 20 years.
I mean people, who can't use PAE, can still use the LTS version.
If i have an old PC without PAE support , I don't need new features in neuer Kernel, security patches will be enough.

But new Hardware(2+ core) always support pae. even the cheap atom platform.
So please make that possible.

flamelab · 2010-03-23 20:14:37

No, it won't be possible, as the devs have already said

If you want all your RAM recognised, use Arch 64 or compile your own kernel through AUR.

-----

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=82742

Last edited by flamelab (2010-03-23 20:15:14)

avogatro · 2010-03-23 20:49:39

I did compile kernel, without aur.
but you have to compile a lot of things again, like virtualbox and nvidia driver.
I can't do this every month.

please don't tell me, you will not want PAE after 2015.
I can understand, why people don't want this in the past, but I think after maybe 10 years, we could add PAE?

A lot of other Distrubution has PAE kernel by the way. (opensuse redhat, fedora, ubuntu, debian ...)

Last edited by avogatro (2010-03-23 20:52:07)

Anonymo · 2010-03-23 21:33:22

Use 64bit

flamelab · 2010-03-23 21:42:43

avogatro wrote:

I did compile kernel, without aur.
but you have to compile a lot of things again, like virtualbox and nvidia driver.
I can't do this every month.
please don't tell me, you will not want PAE after 2015.
I can understand, why people don't want this in the past, but I think after maybe 10 years, we could add PAE?
A lot of other Distrubution has PAE kernel by the way. (opensuse redhat, fedora, ubuntu, debian ...)

Anonymo wrote:

Use 64bit

+1

or create your own -pae kernel. Which I don't suggest.

Last edited by flamelab (2010-03-23 21:53:34)

ngoonee · 2010-03-23 23:10:35

Don't compile your own kernel outside the AUR, you'll have problems with modules (exactly as you've said). Just go to 64-bit, or install kernel26-pae

broch · 2010-03-24 00:53:46

ngoonee wrote:

Don't compile your own kernel outside the AUR, you'll have problems with modules (exactly as you've said). Just go to 64-bit, or install kernel26-pae

No,
This is complete misinformation.
Since 2006 I don't use or have installed Arch kernel. I don't use kernel from AUR either. Never had any issue with modules.
Out of curiosity where do you get this dreadful (and absurd) information?

ngoonee · 2010-03-24 01:06:26

broch wrote:

ngoonee wrote:
Don't compile your own kernel outside the AUR, you'll have problems with modules (exactly as you've said). Just go to 64-bit, or install kernel26-pae
No,
This is complete misinformation.
Since 2006 I don't use or have installed Arch kernel. I don't use kernel from AUR either. Never had any issue with modules.
Out of curiosity where do you get this dreadful (and absurd) information?

For example, when you install the nvidia package, it installs the .ko into /lib/modules/2.6.33-ARCH. Which is not where your sytem is looking for modules. You have to re-install the modules from ABS, where it would then take `uname -r`.

If you read the thread, you will see the OP has already run into the same problem.

Thanks for the 'misinformation' label. Of course some people compile their own kernel. Some people 'make install' other packages as well (or use installers such as with nvidia). It is not to be recommended since if you're going to do that why not do LFS and forget about this whole 'package management' stuff?

flamelab · 2010-03-24 01:16:02

broch wrote:

ngoonee wrote:
Don't compile your own kernel outside the AUR, you'll have problems with modules (exactly as you've said). Just go to 64-bit, or install kernel26-pae
No,
This is complete misinformation.
Since 2006 I don't use or have installed Arch kernel. I don't use kernel from AUR either. Never had any issue with modules.
Out of curiosity where do you get this dreadful (and absurd) information?

Never install packages out of the package management system, except for some cases like Matlab.

Never.

Pacman must always know what packages and files are installed within the system.

Allan · 2010-03-24 01:26:09

flamelab wrote:

Never install packages out of the package management system

I tend to agree. But others can do whatever they like to their system...

ngoonee · 2010-03-24 08:55:43

Allan wrote:

flamelab wrote:
Never install packages out of the package management system
I tend to agree. But others can do whatever they like to their system...

Similarly to how we can give whatever advise we like?

*runs and hides*

Allan · 2010-03-24 09:04:02

*shakes fist*

broch · 2010-03-24 13:04:00

For example, when you install the nvidia package, it installs the .ko into /lib/modules/2.6.33-ARCH. Which is not where your sytem is looking for modules. You have to re-install the modules from ABS, where it would then take `uname -r`.

you really should not come up with unfounded theories. Ever heard about offline installation? I doubt it:
$locate nvidia.ko
/lib/modules/2.6.33-SARABANDE/kernel/drivers/video/nvidia.ko
/lib/modules/2.6.33-grsec-GIGUE/kernel/drivers/video/nvidia.ko
/lib/modules/2.6.33-zen2-PASSACAILLE/kernel/drivers/video/nvidia.ko

currently three kernels, all with working nvidia module installed (method from nvidia site by the way), so I can boot to any kernel and get instantly to GUI. Evidently I can do more with sources (and nvidia binary) than you with ABS.

same goes with cisco vpn and anything else that requires /lib/modules or kernel sources. In most cases this is one step with few seconds of wait (make install to running kernel, or offline installation).

In contrast to these opinions listed: my system never broke, never had issues with networking, kernel, boot, nvidia, wine and so on.

Pacman must always know what packages and files are installed within the system.

another unfounded theory.
Pacman does not have to know about anything. This is nice tool that helps keep track of installed software, but it is not required for anything. It makes life easier... but not always.

Arch has great potential to teach how to use really free software (not in terms of money) because it is so close to original sources. Now what you do is to make people believe that something bad happen if they stop using pacman.
what worries me is that you are trying to scare instead of teach. Bad idea.

Last edited by broch (2010-03-24 15:16:23)

ngoonee · 2010-03-24 15:41:04

broch wrote:

For example, when you install the nvidia package, it installs the .ko into /lib/modules/2.6.33-ARCH. Which is not where your sytem is looking for modules. You have to re-install the modules from ABS, where it would then take `uname -r`.
you really should not come up with unfounded theories. Ever heard about offline installation? I doubt it:
$locate nvidia.ko
/lib/modules/2.6.33-SARABANDE/kernel/drivers/video/nvidia.ko
/lib/modules/2.6.33-grsec-GIGUE/kernel/drivers/video/nvidia.ko
/lib/modules/2.6.33-zen2-PASSACAILLE/kernel/drivers/video/nvidia.ko
currently three kernels, all with working nvidia module installed (method from nvidia site by the way), so I can boot to any kernel and get instantly to GUI. Evidently I can do more with sources (and nvidia binary) than you with ABS.

Sigh, if you want to get into a pissing contest...

pacman -Ql nvidia-beta-all | grep nvidia.ko
nvidia-beta-all /lib/modules/2.6.33-ARCH/kernel/drivers/video/nvidia.ko
nvidia-beta-all /lib/modules/2.6.33-ice/kernel/drivers/video/nvidia.ko
nvidia-beta-all /lib/modules/2.6.33-rt-ice/kernel/drivers/video/nvidia.ko

So, we've established that both of us know how to compile modules for varied kernels. Good.

broch wrote:

same goes with cisco vpn and anything else that requires /lib/modules or kernel sources. In most cases this is one step with few seconds of wait (make install to running kernel, or offline installation).
In contrast to these opinions listed: my system never broke, never had issues with networking, kernel, boot, nvidia, wine and so on.

You know what you are doing. Congratulations. Of course you can have your kernel LFS-style. Which would mean all your packages which require kernel modules will also have to be compiled manually, or at least with modification of the PKGBUILD to take note of the different location of sources.

broch wrote:

Pacman must always know what packages and files are installed within the system.
another unfounded theory.
Pacman does not have to know about anything. This is nice tool that helps keep track of installed software, but it is not required for anything. It makes life easier... but not always.
Arch has great potential to teach how to use really free software (not in terms of money) because it is so close to original sources. Now what you do is to make people believe that something bad happen if they stop using pacman.
what worries me is that you are trying to scare instead of teach. Bad idea.

Most users want to use a system, and will only learn exactly as much as they need at the current point in time to do what they want to do. For this reason, telling users that "you can compile packages from source no problem" is bad, because the user who doesn't know as much as you do WILL eventually screw his system up. I know. I did that to my Ubuntu install way back when, from blindly following the instructions of people who knew more about their system than I did mine.

The point of package management is it should handle all, or almost all, files in the system. For example, your install would probably break the next time there's a libgl update, since the nvidia installer silently replaces libgl's so files. Pacman still thinks they belong to libgl, so you have a library update and oops, no X. Of course, you already know this, so you'd just re-run the installer for all your kernels. The user you've confidently advised to avoid package management will get to learn the hard way.

Is it better for teaching? Of course. Is it better for actually using the system? I don't think so.

iceman81 · 2010-03-24 16:07:16

ngoonee wrote:

Sigh, if you want to get into a pissing contest...

@ngoone: don't feed the troll :-)

Soumyadeep · 2010-03-24 16:10:12

broch wrote:

For example, when you install the nvidia package, it installs the .ko into /lib/modules/2.6.33-ARCH. Which is not where your sytem is looking for modules. You have to re-install the modules from ABS, where it would then take `uname -r`.
you really should not come up with unfounded theories. Ever heard about offline installation? I doubt it:
$locate nvidia.ko
/lib/modules/2.6.33-SARABANDE/kernel/drivers/video/nvidia.ko
/lib/modules/2.6.33-grsec-GIGUE/kernel/drivers/video/nvidia.ko
/lib/modules/2.6.33-zen2-PASSACAILLE/kernel/drivers/video/nvidia.ko
currently three kernels, all with working nvidia module installed (method from nvidia site by the way), so I can boot to any kernel and get instantly to GUI. Evidently I can do more with sources (and nvidia binary) than you with ABS.
same goes with cisco vpn and anything else that requires /lib/modules or kernel sources. In most cases this is one step with few seconds of wait (make install to running kernel, or offline installation).
In contrast to these opinions listed: my system never broke, never had issues with networking, kernel, boot, nvidia, wine and so on.
Pacman must always know what packages and files are installed within the system.
another unfounded theory.
Pacman does not have to know about anything. This is nice tool that helps keep track of installed software, but it is not required for anything. It makes life easier... but not always.
Arch has great potential to teach how to use really free software (not in terms of money) because it is so close to original sources. Now what you do is to make people believe that something bad happen if they stop using pacman.
what worries me is that you are trying to scare instead of teach. Bad idea.

Then y use arch at all ? IMO the only base of classification of distros IS package management(or maybe init).

broch · 2010-03-24 16:16:22

Sigh, if you want to get into a pissing contest...

this would be funny.. I don't see you as a competition. This is Arch forum, not sport event. I was referring to this:

You have to re-install the modules from ABS, where it would then take `uname -r`.

There is no need to reinstall anything. That was my point and uname -r is simply wrong.

pacman does not do any miracles, instead, it runs more or less efficiently update of more than one lib as in the case of libgl. Mesa and nvidia use the same name so in the case of re-installation.

No, source install does not break anything, not more than pacman (for reference see pacman subforum), however at least there is no issue of "impossible"/not supported.

as far as i know one can have 32-bit processor and >3GB RAM, then 64-bit kernel is invalid and non-pae kernel ridiculous.

Then y use arch at all ? IMO the only base of classification of distros IS package management(or maybe init).

can't comment on this: use your imagination

Last edited by broch (2010-03-24 16:19:21)

flamelab · 2010-03-24 21:47:31

iceman81 wrote:

ngoonee wrote:
Sigh, if you want to get into a pissing contest...
@ngoone: don't feed the troll :-)

+1. That guy is like these ones http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … 22#p730422.

Configure, make, make install wherever you want, hurray, don't use pacman

Allan · 2010-03-24 22:18:49

And this thread is now so far from the original post, I think I will just close it...

Arch Linux

#1 2010-03-23 06:15:49

Request kernel with pae

#2 2010-03-23 06:50:49

Re: Request kernel with pae

#3 2010-03-23 20:09:18

Re: Request kernel with pae

#4 2010-03-23 20:14:37

Re: Request kernel with pae

#5 2010-03-23 20:49:39

Re: Request kernel with pae

#6 2010-03-23 21:33:22

Re: Request kernel with pae

#7 2010-03-23 21:42:43

Re: Request kernel with pae

#8 2010-03-23 23:10:35

Re: Request kernel with pae

#9 2010-03-24 00:53:46

Re: Request kernel with pae

#10 2010-03-24 01:06:26

Re: Request kernel with pae

#11 2010-03-24 01:16:02

Re: Request kernel with pae

#12 2010-03-24 01:26:09

Re: Request kernel with pae

#13 2010-03-24 08:55:43

Re: Request kernel with pae

#14 2010-03-24 09:04:02

Re: Request kernel with pae

#15 2010-03-24 13:04:00

Re: Request kernel with pae

#16 2010-03-24 15:41:04

Re: Request kernel with pae

#17 2010-03-24 16:07:16

Re: Request kernel with pae

#18 2010-03-24 16:10:12

Re: Request kernel with pae

#19 2010-03-24 16:16:22

Re: Request kernel with pae

#20 2010-03-24 21:47:31

Re: Request kernel with pae

#21 2010-03-24 22:18:49

Re: Request kernel with pae

Board footer