PAE smxi
sedonix
Status: Contributor
Joined: 09 Sep 2008
Posts: 56
Location: Sedona, AZ
Reply Quote
This is NOT a complaint, just an "I gotta know"

All my kernels are the latest towo.

On my old i386 laptop w/1gb memory I have non-pae kernels and smxi follows on updates.

On my desktop installs w/4GB memory I also use non-pae kernels but smxi won't recognize them as available. I just install them manually.

I read another thread on this subject and it didn't help me.

Is this the way it is?

I can handle a simple yes or no. :-)
Back to top
techAdmin
Status: Site Admin
Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Posts: 4075
Location: East Coast, West Coast? I know it's one of them.
Reply Quote
It's the way it is NOW, I guess, since you say it i s, I'll take your word for it.

Kernel support is added by creating specific patterns to recognize their kernel strings, kernels that have not been matched won't work.

I believe towo non pae are handled because I use those on an old laptop and smxi is fine with it, I think. Let me check.

So the non pae shows fine, assuming of course you have set the default kernel type already.

I assume the:
uname -r
for towo 32 bit pae is the same as the 686 except for -pae at the end, is that correct?

I faintly remember that smxi tries to see if it's a pae or no pae system, then it offers the right kernel if both are present. At least in theory.

I know the default kernel select option doesn't offer pae/non pae, just siduction.
Back to top
techAdmin
Status: Site Admin
Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Posts: 4075
Location: East Coast, West Coast? I know it's one of them.
Reply Quote
:: Code ::
siduction)
kernelStringExtra='-siduction'
kernelType='Siduction'
if [ "$BITS" == '32' ];then
   case $platform in
      686-pae|686)
         if [ -n "$( check_package_status 'linux-image-siduction-686-pae' 'c' )" \
         -a "$( check_pae_support )" == 'true' ];then
            platform='686-pae'
         else
            platform='686'
         fi
         ;;
   esac
fi
;;


Translation: if the system has the linux-image-siduction-686-pae metapackage available, then use it, if not, don't.

The debian pae has one more step, which is checking to make sure system ram is > 3GB then using non pae if available.

I have no current option to force non pae where pae is supported, too much work for no real benefit since you can just run the pae without issue as far as I'm aware of. Keep in mind, the pae simply will use extra ram if it is present, I don't know if there are any other huge differences.

The only other way to handle it is to create a user set option for smxi configure/options file that you create, but there's no option like that currently since I never really saw a need for it.

So if you pick siduction default, then as you say, if the sysatem supports pae smxi will use it, and if it's available in apt.

I'll add support for non pae force use, that's easy, it will be up to you to implement it manually.
Back to top
techAdmin
Status: Site Admin
Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Posts: 4075
Location: East Coast, West Coast? I know it's one of them.
Reply Quote
smxi.org/docs/sticky-options.htm#smxi

To set this option, which will only work on siduction, because siduction is the only distribution I know of that has pae/non pae, debian does not, unless you use 486 kernel.

then add:
:: Code ::
B_FORCE_NON_PAE='true'


Be careful though, at some point towo may stop making non pae kernels, but on your systems, that's fine because they support pae, I assume they do anyway, since they passed the pae smxi test.

and that's that. Since the number of users who will use this option will probably number exacctly one, you, that's all I'm going to do.
Back to top
sedonix
Status: Contributor
Joined: 09 Sep 2008
Posts: 56
Location: Sedona, AZ
Reply Quote
HOLY MOLY!!!! It worked!

Just in time for towo's latest kernel update today.

What part of Yes/No didn't you understand. :-)

I'm sure it was a trivial task for the consummate code person that you are but THANKS!
Back to top
techAdmin
Status: Site Admin
Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Posts: 4075
Location: East Coast, West Coast? I know it's one of them.
Reply Quote
yes/no is not really a set of answers related to code problems. I have many times had clients ask me 'can this be done', where the answer is, anything can be done (if you are willing to pay the dev hours to do it).

There is a small subset of problems that cannot be done, I believe for example that true randomness cannot be done. It can be emulated, but it will never actually be the same as a truly random action, for the reason that what we believe to be random is not in fact random, but that is another question.

Secure windows probably cannot be done, as well.

Now, the question of, do you feel like doing it, that of course has a y/n answer, but since you have contributed issue reports and user feedback for years, and since the actual fix took only a few minutes after I refigured out how the darn stuff works, it's fine.

Also updated the old sticky options page as well, no point in having a feature like this, to be used by almost nobody, without documenting it.
Back to top
sedonix
Status: Contributor
Joined: 09 Sep 2008
Posts: 56
Location: Sedona, AZ
Reply Quote
From
:: Quote ::
exactly one
To
:: Quote ::
almost nobody


I've made the big time!!!
Back to top
techAdmin
Status: Site Admin
Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Posts: 4075
Location: East Coast, West Coast? I know it's one of them.
Reply Quote
Well, I realized that if I don't document the option, and if nobody else reads this thread, it would be by definition be exactly one, whereas if I document it, then there is a tiny, miniscule, but non 0 probability that one, even two, other people might use this new option. My guess is it will stay at 1, or 0 if you stop, but there are other options in smxi that nobody ever uses I'm sure.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   

All times are GMT - 8 Hours