1 |
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 10:35:34 -0500 |
2 |
"Donsbach, Jeff" <jeff.donsbach@××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> |
5 |
> Jean-Sebatien, |
6 |
> |
7 |
> I too have an XL-366 and just recently went through the Gentoo |
8 |
> install. It was not all the difficult. If you are already running a |
9 |
> 2.4 kernel, it will be pretty easy. That was my biggest hurdle in that |
10 |
> I has still been running on old 2.2.19 kernel. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Yes, you can custom build things for your machine type (ev56). I have |
13 |
> already noticed that it does seem a bit snappier than before. I had |
14 |
> been running Red Hat 6.2 (ancient I know). How I went about it is I |
15 |
> basically installed the system stuff (/, /usr, /var ) to an unused |
16 |
> partition. Then I followed the instructions on the gentoo site for |
17 |
> "Installing from a running system". Basically, you start by untarring |
18 |
> one of the "stages" (I started with Stage 1) to your new partition and |
19 |
> then doing a "chroot" to that from the running system. Then you kick |
20 |
> off the bootstrap process. Starting from Stage 1, I think my system |
21 |
> ran almost all night building things. The process would probably be |
22 |
> faster if you started from a higher stage or tried an install from the |
23 |
> LiveCD (a new image for that was offered up last week by Jay Maynard). |
24 |
> |
25 |
> As for Perl performance, I haven't done enough Perl work to say |
26 |
> whether the performance difference in using a "-mcpu ev56" build flag |
27 |
> is noticeable or not. |
28 |
|
29 |
Forget it. If you want a real performance boost with perl you should try |
30 |
to compile it with ccc. Good luck and a lot of fun:-) |
31 |
|
32 |
> |
33 |
> Apache 2 installs without a hitch. I did have a problem building Samba |
34 |
|
35 |
Hehe, yes installs without a hitch but...I had a runtime problem with |
36 |
the db module in apache (sdbm?). It was miscompiled with optimisation |
37 |
enabled. I know that since a long time, but it was undergone. I will |
38 |
post a patch for that. |
39 |
|
40 |
> last week though, which I haven't had time to chase down yet. I'm |
41 |
> getting some duplicate/conflicting symbol definitions in two header |
42 |
> files. |
43 |
> |
44 |
> One thing I did notice is that the "vanilla-sources" kernel source |
45 |
> tree does not seem to obey the Portage build flags for machine type |
46 |
> that I had set. It still built an "ev5" kernel even though I had set |
47 |
> "-mcpu ev56" build flags for Portage. I looked at it a little bit and |
48 |
> it looked like a few tweaks to the kernel source Makefiles would fix |
49 |
> that problem. It may already be fixed in one of the other kernel trees |
50 |
> (alpha-sources and/or compaq-sources for instance). I didn't look |
51 |
> however. |
52 |
|
53 |
That's totally right, because the CFLAGS in portage has nothing to do |
54 |
with the CFLAGS in the kernel tree. So if you wish to compile with ev56 |
55 |
then you should select the right processor-variant in .config . |
56 |
Are you sure that you have an ev56? XL-366 doesn't sound like an ev56:-) |
57 |
but I may be wrong since I haven't looked up. |
58 |
|
59 |
> |
60 |
> I have also installed the sshd daemon and that works fine too. I have |
61 |
> not tied fetchmail, or SpamAssassin yet. However, I "force built" Zope |
62 |
> 2.6.4 (it was not marked to build on alpha in the Portage tree) and so |
63 |
> far that too seems to be working too. |
64 |
|
65 |
Last week I installed zope too. I will fill a bugreport so that Aron |
66 |
mark it stable. Ok?! |
67 |
|
68 |
greets |
69 |
|
70 |
Marc |
71 |
|
72 |
-- |
73 |
gentoo-alpha@g.o mailing list |