> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Tom Rockwell
> Sent: 10 March 2005 16:35
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: SL on 586 hardware
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I have SL303 on a dual-pii (this is the main server for a
> desktop linux
> cluster, running NIS, Kerberos, Cupsd and running some SCSI
> drives for
> /home, etc.). I haven't seen any problems running the i686 kernel -
> should I expect any? Was there a specific problem that led
> to the start
> of this email topic?
>
> /proc/cpuinfo on this machine reports Pentium II and uname -a reports
> i686...
Yes, a PII is an i686. Old Pentium Classics and Pentium MMXs (aka P5s)
are i586.
So an i686 kernel will work on PII hardware as you've discovered.
Martin.
>
> Bly, MJ (Martin) wrote:
>
> >All,
> >
> >
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: [log in to unmask]
> >>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> >>Behalf Of Connie Sieh
> >>Sent: 10 March 2005 16:01
> >>To: Miles O'Neal
> >>Cc: Troy Dawson; 'Ryan Enge';
> [log in to unmask]
> >>Subject: Re: SL on 586 hardware
> >>
> >>
> >>The installer should check hardware arch fairly close to the
> >>beginning
> >>and tell you that a 586 is not supported.
> >>
> >>See more below
> >>
> >>On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Miles O'Neal
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I know this is an old thread, but it hit me last night.
> >>>
> >>>Troy Dawson said...
> >>>|S.L. does not support the i586 kernel, and currently has
> >>>
> >>>
> >>no plans to. This is
> >>
> >>
> >>>|because RHEL does not support it. We just don't have the
> >>>
> >>>
> >>manpower to deal
> >>
> >>
> >>>|with any issues that might arise with a new kernel.
> >>>|If Whitebox does it, then they could be a good choice.
> >>>|If you want to stick with Scientific Linux, one thing you
> >>>
> >>>
> >>could do would be to
> >>
> >>
> >>>|just run the old RedHat 9 kernel. But then, that wouldn't
> >>>
> >>>
> >>give you a uniform
> >>
> >>
> >>>|enviroment, so maybe that wouldn't be the best choice.
> >>>
> >>>Dumb question. The installer takes you all the way through
> >>>the config stuff, right up to package determination (or
> >>>selection, I forget which). To do all this, we are *already
> >>>running a kernel that supports my hardware*. What am I missing
> >>>here?
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >The installer runs the 386 BOOT kernel I believe - supports
> the lowest
> >common denominator which is why it works.
> >
> >Martin.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>>I understand that SL is essentially a rebuild of EL, and
> >>>don't expect y'all to support a lot of unsupported stuff
> >>>(though I won't mind if you do). I'm just not getting why
> >>>the kernel that seems to be available isn't available.
> >>>Is the kernel used at install time not the same kernel
> >>>that gets installed?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>It is derived from the same source but is NOT the same kernel.
> >>-connie sieh
> >>
> >>
> >>>Thanks,
> >>>Miles
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>
|
