2:12 p.m.
Hi all,
i have installed FC5 , after yum update i reboot my machine and there is this
triple boot message :
Fedora 2.6.16-1.2096-FC5
Fedora 2.6.15-1.2054-FC5
Windows XP
it seems that i have 2 cores in my machine , how can i remove the old one ? and i
don't want to see it in the boot message as well !
thanks
---------------------------------
Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with
Voice.
2:14 p.m.
>>>> "NM" == Nader Mirzaee
<nmirzaee(a)yahoo.com> writes:
NM> it seems that i have 2 cores in my machine
No, just two kernels. Kernel updates will leave the previous kernel
around so that you can still boot your machine if something went wrong.
NM> how can i remove the old one ?
Make sure the new one works for you, and then do
yum erase kernel-2.6.15-1.2054_FC5
- J<
2:19 p.m.
On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 12:12 -0700, Nader Mirzaee wrote:
i have installed FC5 , after yum update i reboot my machine and
there
is this
triple boot message :
Fedora 2.6.16-1.2096-FC5
Above is your newer kernel...
Fedora 2.6.15-1.2054-FC5
Above is your older kernel..
Windows XP
This is of course your Windows hehe.
it seems that i have 2 cores in my machine , how can i remove the
old
one ? and i don't want to see it in the boot message as well !
What happened, is you did an upgrade and the kernel got upgraded. The
upgrade program (yum) is set to install the newer kernel package, and
keep the latest/running kernel in case you have a kernel failure or
something and have the older one to use. This is generally good
practice and would recommend you to keep.
--
Mike Chambers
Madisonville, KY
"Sex is like air, it's not important unless you aren't getting any!"
11:30 p.m.
On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 12:12 -0700, Nader Mirzaee wrote:
triple boot message :
Fedora 2.6.16-1.2096-FC5
Fedora 2.6.15-1.2054-FC5
Windows XP
it seems that i have 2 cores in my machine , how can i remove the old
one ?
Don't! Really, I cannot recommend it strongly enough. You've got
nothing to fall back to if a kernel has problems.
and i don't want to see it in the boot message as well !
This is easy, you can hide the menu, or remove items from the menu
(which still leaves what they refer to still on the disc, so you can go
back to things if you have to), or you can change the timeout on the
menu so it automatically boots your preferred system very quickly, etc.
--
(Currently running FC4, in case that's important to the thread)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
7:44 a.m.
Tim wrote:
On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 12:12 -0700, Nader Mirzaee wrote:
>triple boot message :
>
>Fedora 2.6.16-1.2096-FC5
>Fedora 2.6.15-1.2054-FC5
>Windows XP
>
>it seems that i have 2 cores in my machine , how can i remove the old
>one ?
Don't! Really, I cannot recommend it strongly enough. You've got
nothing to fall back to if a kernel has problems.
I'd second that, with this qualification:
As kernel updates become available, the user will eventually build a
list of kernels to boot into. I always keep three: the current kernel
and that last /two/ known good ones. Anything beyond that just fills up
space in your /boot partition, unless you're a tester or kernel module
developer. But anything /less/ than that puts you at some non-starter risk.
Temlakos
9:38 a.m.
On Sat, 2006-04-29 at 08:44 -0400, Temlakos wrote:
As kernel updates become available, the user will eventually build a
list of kernels to boot into. I always keep three: the current kernel
and that last /two/ known good ones. Anything beyond that just fills up
space in your /boot partition, unless you're a tester or kernel module
developer. But anything /less/ than that puts you at some non-starter risk.
Agreed, though I run the risk and often just keep two. Well, I'll
remove the third after the newest seems to work well, after a few days.
The more you have, the longer updates take, too. There's more files to
consider. My system's not too nippy (500 MHz Celeron), and I can notice
it's slower to do a "rpm -Uvh something.rpm" when I have three or more
kernels.
--
(Currently running FC4, occasionally trying FC5.)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
4:07 p.m.
On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 00:08 +0930, Tim wrote:
On Sat, 2006-04-29 at 08:44 -0400, Temlakos wrote:
> As kernel updates become available, the user will eventually build a
> list of kernels to boot into. I always keep three: the current kernel
> and that last /two/ known good ones. Anything beyond that just fills up
> space in your /boot partition, unless you're a tester or kernel module
> developer. But anything /less/ than that puts you at some non-starter risk.
Agreed, though I run the risk and often just keep two. Well, I'll
remove the third after the newest seems to work well, after a few days.
The more you have, the longer updates take, too. There's more files to
consider. My system's not too nippy (500 MHz Celeron), and I can notice
it's slower to do a "rpm -Uvh something.rpm" when I have three or more
kernels.
This latter statement makes no sense to me. How can kernels that are not
running slow the yum update process? Could you offer an explanation for
this?
--
Aaron Konstam <akonstam(a)sbcglobal.net>
3:44 p.m.
>>>> "AK" == Aaron Konstam
<akonstam(a)sbcglobal.net> writes:
AK> This latter statement makes no sense to me. How can kernels that
AK> are not running slow the yum update process?
Before kernel-devel was split off, installing and uninstalling kernels
did indeed take significantly longer if you had several kernels
installed. If I can remember that far back, RPM tried to cut the
installed size down by hardlinking together duplicate files under
/lib/modules/{version}/build. But kernel-devel started being used in
FC3, so this shouldn't be an issue now.
- J<
5:14 p.m.
On Sat, 2006-04-29 at 16:07 -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote:
On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 00:08 +0930, Tim wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-04-29 at 08:44 -0400, Temlakos wrote:
> > As kernel updates become available, the user will eventually build a
> > list of kernels to boot into. I always keep three: the current kernel
> > and that last /two/ known good ones. Anything beyond that just fills up
> > space in your /boot partition, unless you're a tester or kernel module
> > developer. But anything /less/ than that puts you at some non-starter risk.
>
> Agreed, though I run the risk and often just keep two. Well, I'll
> remove the third after the newest seems to work well, after a few days.
>
> The more you have, the longer updates take, too. There's more files to
> consider. My system's not too nippy (500 MHz Celeron), and I can notice
> it's slower to do a "rpm -Uvh something.rpm" when I have three or
more
> kernels.
>
This latter statement makes no sense to me. How can kernels that are not
running slow the yum update process? Could you offer an explanation
for
this?
--
I believe the slowdown that original poster was seeing was due to the
additional entry in the kernel rpm db, which had to be considered when
using the -U option to rpm.
Removing the unused kernel entries from the database with rpm -e would
most likely speed things up a bit.
I see no mention of any slowdown in the yum process itself in the
original post. Although, not being totally intimate with the internals
of the yum script(s), perhaps there is more logic to be executed by the
script when multiple kernels are installed.
DP
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
9:18 p.m.
Tim:
> The more you have, the longer updates take, too. There's
more files to
> consider. My system's not too nippy (500 MHz Celeron), and I can notice
> it's slower to do a "rpm -Uvh something.rpm" when I have three or more
> kernels.
Aaron Konstam:
This latter statement makes no sense to me. How can kernels that are
not
running slow the yum update process? Could you offer an explanation for
this?
Nothing to do with files that are "running", there's simply more files
on the disc that might be checked upon when you're updating files
through RPM (think: dependencies). Kernel packages involve quite a lot
of files, so it becomes quite noticeable. Even more so if you have the
docs and devels installed, too.
--
(Currently running FC4, occasionally trying FC5.)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
5:30 a.m.
On Sat, 2006-04-29 at 08:44 -0400, Temlakos wrote:
Tim wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 12:12 -0700, Nader Mirzaee wrote:
>
>>triple boot message :
>>
>>Fedora 2.6.16-1.2096-FC5
>>Fedora 2.6.15-1.2054-FC5
>>Windows XP
>>
>>it seems that i have 2 cores in my machine , how can i remove the old
>>one ?
>
>
> Don't! Really, I cannot recommend it strongly enough. You've got
> nothing to fall back to if a kernel has problems.
I'd second that, with this qualification:
As kernel updates become available, the user will eventually build a
list of kernels to boot into. I always keep three: the current kernel
and that last /two/ known good ones. Anything beyond that just fills up
space in your /boot partition, unless you're a tester or kernel module
developer. But anything /less/ than that puts you at some non-starter risk.
This won't happen by default on FC5. The "installonlyn" plugin, which is
on by default, tries to limit the number of installed kernels to two
(the number is configurable), though it will sometimes be three if you
don't reboot very often, since it won't delete the running kernel.
Paul.
6593
days inactive
6595
days old
10 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Aaron Konstam -
David-Paul Niner -
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Mike Chambers -
Nader Mirzaee -
Paul Howarth -
Temlakos -
Tim