Geek Talk

[stormneedle]

Ugh. An administrator's worst nightmare is happening to one of the people on LJ named Reasie. (She was in theGrue's list and I got intrigued.) She was trying to extend a RAID set, and it corrupted the RAID. The backups aren't good, and the machine in question is their one centralized everything.

I'd offer to help, but I don't know Linux at all.

[Edit - I'm not certain she needs 10,000,000 folks reading a link to her.]

[NexR]

Ugh, RAIDs can be such a pain sometimes. Then again, hard discs in general. Here's what's going on with me:

I bought a Hitachi 500gb drive and wish to add it to my system. I already used up the 4 SATA mobo ports on other drives, so this new drive I bought for the the third IDE port. The first two IDE ports are used for my DVD-burner and CD-burner.

Now, you'll note that I have an external hard drive via firewire hooked up. That's because I knew the problem I'm about to describe was coming and was delaying the inevitable.

Here's what's it all looks like:
hda = DVD-ROM
hdc = CD-ROM
<insert "hde = Hitachi 500gb" here>
sda = WD 200gb
sdb = WD 200gb
sdc = WD 120gb (sdc and sdd are my main system partitions and there's a whole bunch of mirroring going on here)
sdd = WD 120gb
sde = Maxtor 300gb (external via firewire)

Well, I have been using a linux kernel 2.6.9 for a couple years now and have been pretty happy with it since all my hardware is happy (except of course, the occassional X/nvidia driver borkage). Adding this new hard drive to the third IDE port, however, involves using the illustrious IT8212 controller which wasn't supported in the 2.6.9 kernel.

So I need to upgrade my kernel. No biggie, I figured it was high time anyway. Part of the reason I'm getting more space is so that I can delete my current backup OS (it's still using gnome forfuckssake :)), make this OS the backup, and install a sparkling new updated OS with new kernel.

So I install my hard drive and go to town on reaquainting myself with the intricacies of the linux kernel 2.6.21. Wow! I had no idea they made so many changes to the kernel in so little a span of versions. They're moving all sorts of shit around, creating new categories, adding tons of shit (which is expected), and generally reaking havoc on my well-organized list of drivers I needed for my old kernel. So this takes much longer than planned, but I eventually I have a nice tight new kernel.

Update LILO (the bootloader) with the new kernel in there. Reboot. Borkage.

Here's the deal, my bootloader (LILO) is placed on my sda drive. This is splendid and fine when there's no hde drive, but the hardware looks for the bootloader on the very first disc it finds which used to be sda, but is now hde. OK, so when you update LILO just have it put itself on hde, right? Well, that'd be nice but as far as my old kernel, 2.6.9 (the one I'm running), is concerned, there is no hde because it doesn't have the driver to see it so LILO can't see it either. Chicken meet egg.

Now there are several ways around this problem, but the easiest is to just use your linux floppy boot disk. Go back into 2.6.9, update LILO with the new kernel onto it. Reboot.

Yay! I'm in the new kernel. Everything is sweet and my new hde is visible. Now I just need to update my video drivers for the new kernel so I can get into GUI mode and everything else should go smoothly and take about 10 minutes to finish.

Aside:

Nvidia. Nvidia is one of two makers of video cards (GPUs actually; ATI is the other). These two companies are in some kind of war over keeping their secrets from one another. Nvidia is not friendly to open-source communities like the Linux world. Nvidia refuses to open their drivers to allow the Linux people to improve them for Linux systems. Nvidia doesn't spend a whole lot of time perfecting their Linux drivers because Linux users only represent a small portion of their clientelle. Nvidia drivers suck.

I have been using an old version of the Nvidia drivers. Back then they tried to get me to install with some crazy "installer" script like this was windows or something, but back then I tried many times and it simply never worked. So I had to manually install it, and it worked. Now I am aware that the non-fatal crashes that occassionally plague my computer (X system to be specific) are related to this driver. So in the spirit of updating shit, before I embarked on the kernel upgrade, I downloaded the newest Nvidia drivers under the assumption that they probably fixed a few things and that this should improve video stability.

Now that I'm running the new kernel, it's time to break out the new Nvidia drivers. I run their "installer" thingee and follow their guidelines. And it says I'm done. So I try to enter Linux GUI mode. The screen flickers, looks like it's starting, then borks. So I do the process again. Bork. Again. Bork. Then I start looking into doing the manual install thing. Hmmm... that's weird. I don't seem to be able to do that with this new driver. Can't do anything else, so I reboot to go back to 2.6.9.

Bork. Swearing ensues. It should be noted that the Nvidia "installer" POS goes about installing drivers not just for the currently acting kernel, but for all kernels. Thus, my perfect 2.6.9 system now has crappy new Nvidia drivers fucking it up proper. Nothing for it but to try to get them working on this kernel, so into the "installer" I go. Bork. Back to my old drivers: install. Bork. Hysteria ensues. Manual install. Bork. Back to the new ones: install. Bork. Install. Works. WTFARGH!

Yes, suddenly, and without apparent reason, the _new_ drivers started working on the _old_ kernel whereas they hadn't several times just before, and after they apparently screwed up the _old_ drivers working on the _old_ kernel. (NOTE: they only worked for my dual monitors; the TV out was borked completely). So after hitting the Nvidia website, I find they no longer _allow_ me to do manual install and the "installer" shitpile is all I get to use.

Then I went on vacation. But now I come back to this problem of having a new hard drive and not being able to use it because I can't get the GUI to run on the new kernel because the damnable Nvidia proprietary drivers don't allow me any wiggle room on the install and all I get is their "installer" thingee which doesn't work. And to make it worse, now I don't even have full functionality from my old system. Blegh.

</rant-against-the-machine>

[mo]

I hate it when that happens.

[flipper]

Dude, you must have a lot of pr0n.

[Lindsey Buckinghmof]

I've hit upon something profound here ... hang on, let me crystallize it ...
Yes. Got it.

Linux is Zombo. That's one of the great things about it. You can do anything. Anything at all.

You just have to be prepared to code it up from scratch.

Reminds me of the good old days, when we had to write our own HPGL and PostScript interpreters and pipe the output to the parallel port or to lpr -- and we liked it. Beat working, at any rate.

Sounds like you need a new video card or three, Nex.

[flipper]

...Sounds like you need a new video card or three, Nex.

Good call.  With all that pr0n....

[stormneedle]

Reminds me of the good old days, when we had to write our own HPGL and PostScript interpreters and pipe the output to the parallel port or to lpr -- and we liked it. Beat working, at any rate.

That is way, way, too farking close to work for my sanity's sake. In one project I'm trying to get free soft fonts (of Code 39) to some printer P where P understands PCL5 or better and doesn't mind that Windows isn't the OS pushing the fonts and will print the rest of the page in whatever font is in the firmware.

I know it's possible. I've never done it before. Everybody else that I talk to tell me it'll be so cool when I pull it off but they have no advice and will I send them the code so that they can do stuff with it?

[edit: no, I think I'll leave this mistake in place. It's perfect.]

[bit zero]

FreeBSD.  3ware SATA RAID cards.  Happiness.

[ivan]

I don't know if this is geeky or talky or worthy in any way but it took me a long frustrating time to get to the bottom of this and maybe, just maybe, someone can benefit from my experience:

I frequently search for all kinds of files using Windows Search. The other day, I was looking for "a word or a phrase in a file", and came up empty. I told a colleague that a file with the text we were seeking did not exist. He called, as they say over in that other place, shenannigans, and proved it to me. I trundled back dejectedly and tried again -- zip. "What the WTF is going on?" I asked myself.

Well, here it is: XP's version of Search, out of the box, will search for text only in known file types. So you're fine if it's a .TXT or .DOC or something file, but SOL if it's a .#33398X4Z type file, which is what I was looking for. After a fairly brief yet richly rewarding search on the internets, I found out how to remedy this.

Way number 1: edit the registry to include moar fiel tipes. That's not the smart way of doing it, although many recommend it.

Way number 2 (the smart way): Open a Search window. Click on "Change Preferences". Click on "With Indexing Service (for faster local searches)". Click on "Change Indexing Service Settings (Advanced)". On the ensuing window's toolbar, click the "Show/Hide Console Tree" button. In the left pane, right mouse click on "Indexing Service On Local Machine" (the top node) and select "Properties". On the "Generation" tab, check "Index Files with Unknown Extentions". Click "Apply" and "OK" and exit and so forth, for your mission is accomplished. By the way, you don't have to activate the indexing service for this option to take effect.

effing m$

[Lindsey Buckinghmof]

I did not know that, but it's totally typical of how they do things. It's so intuitive, too!

FWIW, the problem is not all of "MS" -- just Windows. Office works okay on MacOS, just slow.

MacOS X's "Spotlight" program is astonishingly fast. No idea how it works -- it must run in the background caching filesystem data or something like that. It's almost good enough to overcome my dumbass approach to filing.

[mo]

Are those changes saved? Please tell me you don't have to go through all that every time you want to search for a file with an unknown extension.

I assume the definition for "unknown extension" is any extension for anything that is not made by m$? Or does it even apply to extensions created by m$ as well?

[ivan]

Are those changes saved? Please tell me you don't have to go through all that every time you want to search for a file with an unknown extension.

I assume the definition for "unknown extension" is any extension for anything that is not made by m$? Or does it even apply to extensions created by m$ as well?

Yes, the changes are saved. And in this context, "unknown extension" translates to "any extension". The extension is ignored, unless you specify it in the "all or part of the file name" field. Which is how Search worked by default in all versions up to XP.

FWIW, the problem is not all of "MS" -- just Windows. Office works okay on MacOS, just slow.

I fully agree, and apologize for the banal m$ bashing. Usually I get on people's cases for that. I'm actually in awe of Excel, and XP is a marvel of connectivity. Remote desktop FTW!

[flipper]

I use remote desktop all the time :detta

[stormneedle]

mstsc (ms terminal services client) works fine on the servers. Assuming, that is, that some bozo in the next suite remembers this time to disconnect the session he no longer needed after fixing something last week.

[eldiem]

I did not know that, but it's totally typical of how they do things. It's so intuitive, too!

FWIW, the problem is not all of "MS" -- just Windows. Office works okay on MacOS, just slow.

MacOS X's "Spotlight" program is astonishingly fast. No idea how it works -- it must run in the background caching filesystem data or something like that. It's almost good enough to overcome my dumbass approach to filing.

OMG when we first got whatever version of OSX first had the spotlight thingy I nearly wet. It is SO fast. I'm askeered to use the windows search thingy on my home computer b/c the damn thing is so slow anyway, I'd be worried I'd lock up the system or whatever.

I don't understand how people I work with don't use Spotlight all the time. I do. I'll go to their offices, we'll chat about some edits or something else generally editorial (never anything personal or chit-chat, natch) and coworker will say, "Here, let me send you the file" and proceed to spend at least 5 minutes clicking through folders and searching through emails. I bite my tongue and have to restrain myself from being all Nick Burns and going "MOVE" to do it for them.