Ahh, so maybe I get to learn something

Post #178,156 by broomberg 10/7/04 8:08:24 AM Reply	Ahh, so maybe I get to learn something Except when the subject line says, "absurd", and it essentially an insult with JUST enough information to pique my interest without really telling me enough to do the task. Hmm. man genksyms Not real helpful. [link\|http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=suse+genksyms+.config&btnG=Search\|http://www.google.co...onfig&btnG=Search] Nothing jumps out. Lots of points for further investigation. Nah. This DOES look interesting, but you really haven't pointed me in any firm direction, and a "thousand points of Google" is not really that helpful. It is not a pain point with me at this time. I will try to never put bleeding edge non-standard stuff in our data center. On the other hand, the 10 shiny new dual/quad Opterons, most of which will be running Suse, might drive me to it. Note: I am not the sysadmin. I'm not supposed to be taking a lot of time on stuff like this. But I am the final Go To Guy, so I still want to know. What version of Suse do you run? What CPU? What RAID card / external array? What file systems? How much storage? How many users? What types of applications are being run? What are your uptime requirements? How many systems? How many admins?
Post #178,159 by deSitter 10/7/04 8:24:14 AM Reply	Ok, sorry out of line to say "absurd" I thought you were piling on. I forgot that you're the sensible Linux real worlder here. In the dark past a new kernel meant all new modules. You can avoid that by including module version information in the object files. In /usr/src/linux you'll find a file .config - there's an option CONFIG_MODVERSIONS (make menuconfig and look under "Loadable Module Support" - 2.4.x). Here's what it does: [link\|http://www.skynet.ie/~mark/home/kernel/symbols.html\|http://www.skynet.ie...rnel/symbols.html] So you only have to recompile modules whose interface has changed. -drl
Post #178,207 by ben_tilly 10/7/04 11:24:34 AM Reply	You mean that he's the ONLY one? I thought that I was another. I just don't bother with pointless religious wars. My attitude is that I recommend Linux where I know that it will work well. I don't unless I have a good case for it. I've been doing so since the late 90's. I don't use it where I can't prove its value. However given that computers in my environment are replaced slowly (and I'm not the one replacing them), I don't bother playing a lot with exotic stuff. However I have the freedom that Barry doesn't to say that my organizations can support itself. Therefore I have the opportunity to use Debian. I'm not a particularly strong advocate for it though. At my current job the developers exclusively use Linux, as well as the servers that our code runs on. (We don't have to use Linux, but it has to be Unix-compatible. Right now we are split between Red Hat and Debian.) The DBAs have Linux available, as does the IS team. The graphics department has some Macs. Everything else is Windows. Databases run on Solaris, but plans are in place to replace them with Linux. I claim no responsibility for this state of affairs - it was like this when I arrived. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Welcome to IWETHEY!