Results 11 to 20 of 20
Thread: Package names for my CPU
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
I appreciate all of your efforts and responses, they are of immense help in getting me going. I will pst here what is going on as I proceed. I assume that I'll just get the latest 'stable' version out there (7.7.5 I believe) and start there.
Any suggestions about how to eliminate modules or selecting what is actually needed? And is there a way to determine what sata module I'm using with my machine. I also work on FAT file systems and I assume that is another module that I need.
Thanks again... I'm sure you'll hear from me..
From personal experience.
1. Take your time. Do not try and rush through this especially for the first few builds
2. If there is something you don't fully understand, read up on it from different sources. A change of perspective may explain something in a way that makes it go click
3. If you still don't get then try and explain it to your pet or a desk lamp or something. It really helps.
4. Accept that sometimes you are just have to see what it does to get it.
5. If you have the luxury of a second computer, relax you can still get help!
And finally and most importantly never, under any circumstances, think that it is a good idea to re-compile your kernel after coming home from a night out down the pub!
Whilst doing the build or attempting to get it going, as I have a few problems... I was wondering if when I do:
# echo $(uname -a) Linux debian 3.2.0-4-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 3.2.57-3+deb7u2 x86_64 GNU/Linux #
Also, is a 32 bit machine OK for building a 64 bit version of the kernel?
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Victoria, B.C. Canada
You can compile a 64-bit kernel using 32-bit linux. You need to set the -m64 and you need to have the multilib version of gcc installed. You also need to set the CROSS_COMPILE make variable accordingly.
If you use apt-get update, the next time you will output information with uname -a, you will retreive the same thing as you retreived, but it will probably be wrote 3.2.57-3+deb7u3 or u4 or u5
The 3.2.57-3+deb7u2 means that you are running the version 3 of the kernel, which has 2 minor changes from 3.0 and it has been reviewed (some very minor changes, like optimizing) 57 times. The -3 means that it has been patched 3 times and the +deb7u2 means that you are running it on debian 7 updated twice.
I also read about making the CPU version or type '6' as in 686 architecture. Have not gotten far enough to even try it...
Thanks again, I'm plugging along. Thanks for the hand holding, I'm trying to find my own answers, but some are difficult to either find or associate to what I'm doing. I do believe I may be using the wrong compiler as I'm wanting a Intel set, and the system is running on an AMD? I have yet to discover where that is changed, I'm assuming in the .config file, or it's equivalent.
amd64 is what Debian calls their Intel compatible 64 bit release so it's fine for Intel chip sets. It's what some other distributions call x86_64. I believe it has something to do with AMD being the first to release a 64 bit chip.
I was told, by somebody that the effort was to include AMD and a 686 model would not support the AMDs in the world, so they built that version as it runs on all processors. I used to know all of the different internals of all these devices, but I couldn't keep up with all of them. A friend advised me that there is a 10% or so increase if you build it for your CPU, and it loads faster, so there are some good reasons to do this.
I'm pretty sure that's why I get the 126 error, is some kind of difference between the Intel and AMD lines. Since I wish to port to other machines, or do a partial port of code, I thought it would be smart to build the kernel and then I'd be able to massage what's going on. They have a version of Debian for the Freedombox (DreamPlug plug computer) that I've used, but I got sick and needed to get myself fixed before the toys....
Isn't i686 a 32 bit architecture?
Yeah... just found this which may or may not clear things up.
i686 code is intended to be executed on processors which are compatible
with the 32 bit Intel x86 platform, which includes all Intel 32bit x86
processors up to and including the Pentium 4, etc. as well as processors
from AMD and other vendors which make compatible 32bit chips.
x86_64 code is intended to be executed on processors which are
compatible with the AMD64 64bit platform, including the AMD Athlon 64,
AMD Opteron and related AMD chip families, and the Intel EM64T based
These 64bit processors are fully backward compatible with their 32bit
predecessors. So if you have a 64bit AMD Athlon 64 or Intel EM64T
processor, it is up to you whether to install the 64bit x86_64 OS or
the 32bit i386/i686 OS.
I have never built a kernel on a Debian based OS, I used to do so back in the days when I was a Slacker. These days my hardware is plenty good enough with a stock kernel and frankly, I am too lazy and impatient to be bothered. Based on my rather old experience I would say that a properly configured and compiled kernel should give between a 5% and 15% improvement over a stock one, depending on how the stock kernel has been built.
The 126 error seems to be related to a permission issue (not building as root) or cross compiling (building for a different architecture than you are running) which will complicate things for a first attempt at building a kernel. Did you follow gregm's advice back in post #14?
That's based entirely on a quick Internet search. 126 could also mean many other things.
Eliija, I have 32 Gig of memory and I'd like to use it. I run lots of different stuff (technical term) but everything is moving to 64 bit environments, might as well do it now.
I read, on the Debian site, I believe that the 6 term is for 4th and later CPU's from Intel, which is what started this whole mess. Both of the machines I use have 64 Bit OS's' on them, I'd rather keep it that way. I questioned that ability to compile 64 bit OS on a 32 bit machine as I have a couple Pentiums that are still plugging away, but they seem soooo slow...
I also tried to search for things instead of asking here, I really feel like a dummy if it's in 10, 000 different feeds and I miss it for some reason, so I check as best as I can. It's just this has so many different options and identifiers that I'm not always sure what I'm looking at. I also wish to run Intel CPUs', as I spent more money on them as I like Intel's hardware designs. Even though I'm not quite up on them like I used to be. That stuff moves so fast anymore it's very difficult to keep up with just one company. Also, the commercial licenses are starting to base the cost on how many cores you have, not just a single computer, sot hat bumps software prices. Another reason to go with Linux. I can't hardly work on a Windows machine anymore without getting myself in trouble with some simple problem.
Thanks, anytime you have information that you think I might be able to use, please pass it on. I'm sure we have people in the dark areas reading this also!!!