I have a fully updated system with an nvidia FX 5500 video card. It was working well with the Nvidia 1.0-7676 driver on every kernel I have used.
I recently updated to the latest driver (1.0-8174) and have a problem I cannot get around. My monitor is a Samsung SyncMaster 213T which only works at the highest resolution (1600x1200) when running at 60hz VertRefresh. Even though the xorg.conf file limits the refresh to that, when booting with the 8174 driver the monitor sees the refresh as "not optimal". I go back to the 7676 driver and the same xorg.conf file works perfectly.
Note that I have another system with an older nvidia card and the newer driver works perfectly there.
Has anybody else seen similar results and/or know of a way to get it to work properly? Should I just depend on a response from nvidia to get that resolved?
TIA Jeff
On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 18:40 -0600, Jeff Vian wrote:
Has anybody else seen similar results and/or know of a way to get it to work properly? Should I just depend on a response from nvidia to get that resolved?
The previous (not the very latest) 8xxx drivers had some issues with MythTV. I am not sure about the very latest ones.
NVidia has an email link on their download page where you can report problems. If you are convinced it's a problem with the drivers per se, click on the link and do a detailed report.
Jeff Vian wrote:
I have a fully updated system with an nvidia FX 5500 video card. It was working well with the Nvidia 1.0-7676 driver on every kernel I have used.
I recently updated to the latest driver (1.0-8174) and have a problem I cannot get around.
The latest driver is 8178, released December 22, 2005. Perhaps try it.
I always keep a couple of kernels around. I seem to run into this kind of problem:
Which seems to suggest that installing the new package *8178* wants to remove nvidia-glz 8174 from currnet 1653 kernel - this somehow cause 1644 to also lose its dependency.
Packaging problem?
thanks
\g/
# yum update Setting up Update Process Setting up repositories Reading repository metadata in from local files Resolving Dependencies --> Populating transaction set with selected packages. Please wait. ---> Package kernel-module-nvidia-2.6.14-1.1653_FC4smp.i686 0:1.0.8178-0.lvn.1.4 set to be updated ---> Package kernel-module-nvidia-2.6.14-1.1653_FC4.i686 0:1.0.8178-0.lvn.1.4 set to be updated ---> Package nvidia-glx.i386 0:1.0.8178-0.lvn.1.4 set to be updated --> Running transaction check --> Processing Dependency: nvidia-glx = 0:1.0.8174 for package: kernel-module-nvidia-2.6.14-1.1644_FC4smp --> Finished Dependency Resolution Error: Missing Dependency: nvidia-glx = 0:1.0.8174 is needed by package kernel-module-nvidia-2.6.14-1.1644_FC4smp
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 01:12 -0500, Mail List wrote:
I always keep a couple of kernels around. I seem to run into this kind of problem:
Which seems to suggest that installing the new package *8178* wants toremove nvidia-glz 8174 from currnet 1653 kernel - this somehow cause 1644 to also lose its dependency.
Packaging problem?
No - Livna is doing a bad job.
They only ship nvidia rpms for the latest kernels and miss to build them for older one.
They seem to miss that during attempting a kernel update, people have older kernels installed and therefore can't update without Livna shipping nvidia-drivers for both the older and the kernels.
Check this list's archive, I posted a remedy to work around this issue recently.
Ralf
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 01:12 -0500, Mail List wrote:
I always keep a couple of kernels around. I seem to run into this kind of problem:
Which seems to suggest that installing the new package *8178* wants toremove nvidia-glz 8174 from currnet 1653 kernel - this somehow cause 1644 to also lose its dependency.
Packaging problem?
thanks
You are using the Livna package? I am compiling directly from the nvidia install package.
\g/
# yum update Setting up Update Process Setting up repositories Reading repository metadata in from local files Resolving Dependencies --> Populating transaction set with selected packages. Please wait. ---> Package kernel-module-nvidia-2.6.14-1.1653_FC4smp.i686 0:1.0.8178-0.lvn.1.4 set to be updated ---> Package kernel-module-nvidia-2.6.14-1.1653_FC4.i686 0:1.0.8178-0.lvn.1.4 set to be updated ---> Package nvidia-glx.i386 0:1.0.8178-0.lvn.1.4 set to be updated --> Running transaction check --> Processing Dependency: nvidia-glx = 0:1.0.8174 for package: kernel-module-nvidia-2.6.14-1.1644_FC4smp --> Finished Dependency Resolution Error: Missing Dependency: nvidia-glx = 0:1.0.8174 is needed by package kernel-module-nvidia-2.6.14-1.1644_FC4smp
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 08:41 -0600, Jeff Vian wrote:
You are using the Livna package? I am compiling directly from the nvidia install package.
Mixing RPM and non-RPM software is usually a bad idea.
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Florin Andrei wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 08:41 -0600, Jeff Vian wrote:
You are using the Livna package? I am compiling directly from the nvidia install package.
Mixing RPM and non-RPM software is usually a bad idea.
not always. nvidia's been pretty good about providing downloadable and runnable files that install drivers on FC systems with a minimum of fuss. at least, they used to.
rday
Am Mittwoch, den 04.01.2006, 13:40 -0500 schrieb Robert P. J. Day:
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Florin Andrei wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 08:41 -0600, Jeff Vian wrote:
You are using the Livna package? I am compiling directly from the nvidia install package.
Mixing RPM and non-RPM software is usually a bad idea.
not always. nvidia's been pretty good about providing downloadable and runnable files that install drivers on FC systems with a minimum of fuss.
You mean the installer that overwrites files that again are overwritten during the next Mesa/Xorg-Update? Or that don't work if you change the graphic card to one from another verndor?
Such things are quite fun sometimes. Does anybody remember Win 9x? ;-)
SCNR
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 20:02 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
You mean the installer that overwrites files that again are overwritten during the next Mesa/Xorg-Update? Or that don't work if you change the graphic card to one from another verndor?
Exactly.
The RPMs are not without their own set of inconveniences, but at least they don't leave the system in an inconsistent state.
Am Mittwoch, den 04.01.2006, 11:13 -0800 schrieb Florin Andrei:
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 20:02 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
You mean the installer that overwrites files that again are overwritten during the next Mesa/Xorg-Update? Or that don't work if you change the graphic card to one from another vendor?
Exactly.
The RPMs are not without their own set of inconveniences, but at least they don't leave the system in an inconsistent state.
If there are inconveniences that can he solved help fixing them or at least report them to the maintainer at
The problem with updating the kernel modules manually should hopefully be solved for FC5 and later.
CU thl
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 20:28 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 04.01.2006, 11:13 -0800 schrieb Florin Andrei:
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 20:02 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
You mean the installer that overwrites files that again are overwritten during the next Mesa/Xorg-Update? Or that don't work if you change the graphic card to one from another vendor?
Exactly.
The RPMs are not without their own set of inconveniences, but at least they don't leave the system in an inconsistent state.
If there are inconveniences that can he solved help fixing them or at least report them to the maintainer
== you.
Done: http://bugzilla.livna.org/show_bug.cgi?id=725
The problem with updating the kernel modules manually should hopefully be solved for FC5 and later.
Not helpful for FC < 5 users.
Ralf
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 11:13 -0800, Florin Andrei wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 20:02 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
You mean the installer that overwrites files that again are overwritten during the next Mesa/Xorg-Update? Or that don't work if you change the graphic card to one from another verndor?
Exactly.
The RPMs are not without their own set of inconveniences, but at least they don't leave the system in an inconsistent state.
Please, Please point out exactly what files get overwritten by the nvidia installer program.
-- Florin Andrei
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 20:02 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 04.01.2006, 13:40 -0500 schrieb Robert P. J. Day:
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Florin Andrei wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 08:41 -0600, Jeff Vian wrote:
You are using the Livna package? I am compiling directly from the nvidia install package.
Mixing RPM and non-RPM software is usually a bad idea.
not always. nvidia's been pretty good about providing downloadable and runnable files that install drivers on FC systems with a minimum of fuss.
You mean the installer that overwrites files that again are overwritten during the next Mesa/Xorg-Update? Or that don't work if you change the graphic card to one from another verndor?
Please be a little more explicit in your complaints.
Changing from one manufacturers (nvidia) chipset to another (ati) has always been a problem and hardly is any different whether you are using the drivers from the livna repo or directly from the manufacturer. You always have to tell X what the video card is (in some way).
AFAIK the current nvidia driver does not overwrite anything unless you tell it to, and then only the xorg.conf file. (I have been using it since they first released it). The rpm is more likely to do what you indicate without warning.
The only file in X that needs changed for that driver is xorg.conf and it needs modified whenever a different brand video card is chosen, regardless of whether you use the system config tools (systen-config-display) or do it manually. In fact, the only way I can get my monitor to work correctly is to manually edit that file to set the proper refresh rates.
Such things are quite fun sometimes. Does anybody remember Win 9x? ;-)
SCNR
Thorsten Leemhuis fedora@leemhuis.info
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 10:34 -0800, Florin Andrei wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 08:41 -0600, Jeff Vian wrote:
You are using the Livna package? I am compiling directly from the nvidia install package.
Mixing RPM and non-RPM software is usually a bad idea.
If I am using the source directly from the vendor (and always have) it seems no problem to me.
-- Florin Andrei
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 18:40:48 -0600 Jeff Vian jvian10@charter.net opined:
I have a fully updated system with an nvidia FX 5500 video card. It was working well with the Nvidia 1.0-7676 driver on every kernel I have used.
I recently updated to the latest driver (1.0-8174) and have a problem I
The latest driver is 8178!
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 13:53 -0500, David Cary Hart wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 18:40:48 -0600 Jeff Vian jvian10@charter.net opined:
I have a fully updated system with an nvidia FX 5500 video card. It was working well with the Nvidia 1.0-7676 driver on every kernel I have used.
I recently updated to the latest driver (1.0-8174) and have a problem I
The latest driver is 8178!
It is now 8-)
-- Our DNSRBL - Eliminate Spam: http://www.TQMcube.com/spam_trap.php FSS v. AHBL SLAPP Suit: http://www.TQMcube.com/ahbl.php Multi-RBL Check: http://www.TQMcube.com/rblcheck.php Zombie Graphs: http://www.TQMcube.com/zombies.php
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 13:53 -0500, David Cary Hart wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 18:40:48 -0600 Jeff Vian jvian10@charter.net opined:
I have a fully updated system with an nvidia FX 5500 video card. It was working well with the Nvidia 1.0-7676 driver on every kernel I have used.
I recently updated to the latest driver (1.0-8174) and have a problem I
The latest driver is 8178!
I just tried that one and it is the same as 8174 for me. The driver refuses to use the specified VertRefresh for my monitor.
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 08:06:10PM -0600, Jeff Vian wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 13:53 -0500, David Cary Hart wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 18:40:48 -0600 Jeff Vian jvian10@charter.net opined:
I have a fully updated system with an nvidia FX 5500 video card. It was working well with the Nvidia 1.0-7676 driver on every kernel I have used.
I recently updated to the latest driver (1.0-8174) and have a problem I
The latest driver is 8178!
I just tried that one and it is the same as 8174 for me. The driver refuses to use the specified VertRefresh for my monitor.
I had a similar problem, for some reason only after updating to 8174 and/or 8178 on a viewsonic VP191b. It appeared that the EDID information reported by the monitor wasn't valid for the resolution I wanted, so I ended up setting "UseEdidFreqs" to false and setting the refresh rates by hand. Alternatively, just switch to a different resolution (ctrl-alt-shift-numky+).
HTH, Tim
On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 01:14 -0800, Tim Fenn wrote:
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 08:06:10PM -0600, Jeff Vian wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 13:53 -0500, David Cary Hart wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 18:40:48 -0600 Jeff Vian jvian10@charter.net opined:
I have a fully updated system with an nvidia FX 5500 video card. It was working well with the Nvidia 1.0-7676 driver on every kernel I have used.
I recently updated to the latest driver (1.0-8174) and have a problem I
The latest driver is 8178!
I just tried that one and it is the same as 8174 for me. The driver refuses to use the specified VertRefresh for my monitor.
I had a similar problem, for some reason only after updating to 8174 and/or 8178 on a viewsonic VP191b. It appeared that the EDID information reported by the monitor wasn't valid for the resolution I wanted, so I ended up setting "UseEdidFreqs" to false and setting the refresh rates by hand. Alternatively, just switch to a different resolution (ctrl-alt-shift-numky+).
Where did you find the "UseEdidFreqs" part? I don't find any reference to it in 'man xorg.conf'.
Switching to a different resolution does work, but it seems the 8XXX drivers have some problem with being manually restricted to a given VertRefresh frequency. Going back to the 7676 driver works for all resolutions with the same xorg.conf file. This is really irritating with a monitor that is default resolution of 1600x1200x60 but X cant seem to use it at that resolution with the latest releases of the video card manufacturer's drivers.
BTW, I have the same problem on my MX400 adapter as I do on this FX 5500 adapter.
I have posted to the Nvidia site on this.
HTH, Tim
-- Morals? I eat communism and $h!t America, brother. --Seanbaby
the "UseEdidFreqs" option is for the nvidia driver, not xorg. You should make sure you go through nvidia's readme to set up your xorg.conf. There is a lot of very useful information and options in nvidia's documentation. http://download.nvidia.com/XFree86/Linux-x86_64/1.0-8178/README/index.html
Best of luck to you,
Endy
On Sun, 2006-01-08 at 00:49 -0800, Endymion wrote:
the "UseEdidFreqs" option is for the nvidia driver, not xorg. You should make sure you go through nvidia's readme to set up your xorg.conf. There is a lot of very useful information and options in nvidia's documentation. http://download.nvidia.com/XFree86/Linux-x86_64/1.0-8178/README/index.html
Best of luck to you,
Endy
Thank you very much. I had not looked at that recently (after all my system had been working well for some time). Guess that goes to show that sometimes one needs to revisit the documentation.
Note to self: RTFM ! !
After making that change my system is now working properly with the latest driver.
Both Tim and Endy's suggestions led to the solution.
-
David Cary Hart -
Endy -
Florin Andrei -
Genes MailLists -
Jeff Vian -
Kenny Gow -
Ralf Corsepius -
Robert P. J. Day -
Thorsten Leemhuis -
Tim Fenn