Hi,

I just tried to rebuild my kernel w/ NTFS support using make menuconfig, afterwards I did 'make dep' and there where no errors, but when I did 'make zImage' it gives me this message at the end of the compilation:

tools/build bootsect setup compressed/vmlinux.out CURRENT > zImage
Root device is (22, 66)
Boot sector 512 bytes.
Setup is 2615 bytes.
System is 1162 kB
System is too big. Try using bzImage or modules.
make[1]: *** [zImage] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-2.4.20-8/arch/i386/boot'
make: *** [zImage] Error 2
[root@localhost linux-2.4]#

as a Noob I have no idea what this means, it compiled fine before I checked, 'NTFS (read only). in my menu... I also have NVIDIA drivers currently installs if that would effect anything. Is the 'system is too big' message the actual error?

thanks

It says use bzImage rather than zImage - for greater compression
to make the kernel image smaller. I cannot tell you "what" the image
is too large for, though. It is 2615 bytes.

The error is this line -> make[1]: *** [zImage] Error 1

Either:
to compress the kernel, or go back and try to compile some parts as kernel modules to save space.

I've done a lot of reading since I've posted this thread about the kernel. if I do a make clean and then make zImage, it's small enough, and if I go to make menuconfig and just add NTFS read only support (as a module) I still get the same problem... do I have to through each and every item in make menuconfig and make it a module?

also, what are the perks if not making items modules? I understand that modules keep your kernel small, and let you load modules into memory only when needed, so why isn't everything a module? i.e. which ones are best used part of the kernel, and which are best used as modules.

thanks,

fatherg,

Is there some reason you are using make zImage rather than make bzImage?
It might be small enough if you just make that one change.

The "perks" for building support into the kernel, rather than loading it as a module,
are two-fold IMO. First, it is more secure than a module. Second, you don't have
to load or unload modules to use that device - the support is always there. And
some would say the fact that the system boots faster with support as modules,
rather than built in, is a perk. For me, since I don't reboot frequently, that's not
an issue. I prefer to have support for all my hardware built in and ready for use,
rather than loading modules. This is just personal preference. Maybe for some
things that you rarely use, like a scanner, you would compile as a module. But
realize, that if your hardware is plugged into the computer, then the hotplug
system is going to load it's module when you boot your computer - unless you
blacklist it.

As for the modules question, Linux Kernel modules are pieces of code (examples:
fs, net, and hw driver) running in kernel mode that you can add at runtime. The Linux
core cannot be modularized: scheduling and interrupt management or core network,
and so on. These modules will have to be "built into the kernel" rather than compiled
as modules. For instance, the filesystem for your / directory will have to be built into
the kernel so that it can access your data before loading other modules. So if you're
using the reiserfs filesystem, you will have to have it built in. For the NTFS fs, since
you don't need it to boot, you can compile it as a module (as you're doing).

This is grossly simplified, and there are many docs that you can read to learn more
about the kernel.

What distribution are you using?

Which kernel do you have now?

Which kernel are you compiling?

If 2.4.20-8, why are you compiling such an old version?

The latest stable kernel version is 2.6.9 and the latest 2.4 series kernel is 2.4.27.
Even if you want to run 2.4.x, that kernel is better, and has security patches that
2.4.20 doesn't have.

I have been reading how to's on kernel building and it always says to use, 'make zImage' I thought that it was for a specific reason, I don't understand what I'm doing, however, to make my kernel too big for zImage. Really this is all I want from my linux box, (a) be able to copy files from my windows partition to my linux partition, and (b) be able to make my linux box run smoother (trim down my kernel).

Looking at menuconfig, I can't tell what I should and shouldn't leave out to accomplish the second of the two tasks, and I'm assuming that zImage, because it deals w/ smaller kernel's, deals with faster kernels.

I have Red Hat 9. (I started w/ Fedora Core 1, but gnome and kde kept crashing, I'd like to use gentoo because it sounds like it would do exactly what I'm trying to do, but redhat sounds like it's better for a noob like me)

The kernel that I'm using came w/ my RedHat 9 disk. In my /usr/src/ dir I have two directories, linux-2.4/ and linux-2.4.20-8/ I have been trying to compile whilie in the linux-2.4/ dir, either way they are both outdated I know. I appologize if my noobness annoy's you, but these are questions I can't find answers for when I google or rea d help docs.

So should I uninstall my current kernel before I install 2.6.9.

I won't ask what HOW-TOs you're reading, but it sounds as if they might
be old and out of date. There are only two that I recommend:
Newbie Guide To Compiling A Kernel by DrOzz here at LQ
Kernel Rebuild Guide by Kwan Lowe

However, since you're running RedHat, you should know that they
don't do things according to published Linux standards, such as the
Linux File System Standard. They do things "the RedHat way," so
I would recommend the Red Hat Linux Cuxtomization Guide ,
specifically Section 30. Upgrading the Kernel

I don't understand why you would want to build a Linux box just to
move files from your Windoze partition, but if that's all you want to
do with the OS, then install something like Debian Woody with the
base packages only.

/me thinks (a) is irrelevant unless he opens the files in Linux.

Both zImage and bzImage are compressed with gzip. The kernel
includes a mini-gunzip to uncompress the kernel and boot into it.
The difference is that the old zImage uncompresses the kernel into
low memory (the first 640k), and bzImage uncompresses the kernel
into high memory (over 1M). The bzImage actually boots faster, but
other than that, there's no difference in the way the system *runs*.
The rule is that if all drivers cannot fit into the zImage, then you need
to modularize more. If the kernel is small, it will work as both a
zImage and a bzImage, and the booted system runs the same way.

A big kernel will work as a bzImage, but not as a zImage. Both bootimages
are gzipped, (bzImage is not bzipped as the name would suggest), but are
put together and loaded differently, that allows the kernel to load in higher
address space, that does not limit it to lower memory in the pathetic Intel
architecture.

So quit being hard headed and use bzImage - and make a bootable image.

With Gentoo you compile everything from source. I would not in any
way recommend you try Gentoo since you having trouble recompiling the
kernel at the moment. But I would recommend Debian. My first Linux was
RedHat 6 (about 1999) and I abandoned it after a couple of months. My
next attempt was with RH9 in June 2003, and I happily abandoned it in
about 2 months. The next was Debian. It is very stable, fast, and starts off
with very little installed. Lean and mean...I now use Slackware on all 4 of
the comps in this house.

Sooner or later you'll have to settle down with a distribution and learn why
you're having problems such as "KDE and Gnome crashing." There are many
distros to choose from. DistroWatch lists pretty much all of them.

Your noobness doesn't annoy me. What does is that two men have now
told you to use bzImage, but you insist that zImage is the way to go. LQ
is a help site. The advice offered is freely given, without any warranty,
and the rules stress that you should fully understand what a recommended
change may do to your system.

My suggestion is that, if you don't want to follow our advice, just post
something similar to this:
"Thanks guys, but I don't agree that I must either use bzImage of compile
more of my kernel as modules. Please don't post back. I want other opinions."

I've given you more than enough information; I've successfully built and
installed quite a few kernels - two yesterday. I've always used bzImage, and
my smallest kernel at the moment is 1173 KB, the largest is 1544 KB. They all
boot, none returned errors, and all were made with "make bzImage"

My recommendation is that if you're going to stick with RedHat, look at that
RedHat link I provided you, and do it "the RedHat way." And if you're going
to compile the kernel yourself, rather than using a RedHat pre-compiled one,
I definitely say don't get a 2.6.x series kernel at this point.

But I can't stand RedHat - and would recommend Mandrake if you want to use
a GUI based distro, Slackware if you want to learn Linux, or Debian if you just
want the most basic of installs with very few packages.

NB: Debian Woody has old packages; Debian Sarge is more up-to-date.

hey thanks for the feed back. I'm currently running redhat because thats all I've got access too at the moment. I do wish to switch distros because I want to learn how to use 'real' linux. I did not realize that with red hat you can't just compile the kernel as it's described in every other how to I've read so far. I think that explains a lot.

Also, I was under the impression that bzImage = slow kernel and that zImage = fast kernel. What I've been told is that the larger your kernel is, the slower your system runs.

When I boot into windows I can open, for instance, a program that records and plays audio, (ala rezound) load up a .wav file, and my system won't completely freeze up until said .wav file has finished loading. (which is what happens when I'm in Linux) I explained this issue in a previous thread and based on the responses I got, I started to try and tinker w/ the kernel to make it smaller. Or, 'less bloated' as it was termed in one of the replies I got.

Does the size of the kernel not really matter? Is that where I'm going wrong? I'm trying to figure out what exactly is causing my machine to slow down when doing two things at one time. I've read a great deal about Linux and it is supposed to manage resources much faster and more efficient than windows, and I believe this. However, up to this point my windows installation runs circles around my linux installation. and also gets less errors... and ultimately I want to abandon windows all together... unfortunately I'm off to a bad start.

again thanks for the feed back and I'm going to check those links you provided right now.

This is just my advice, and many would disagree. In fact, you'll probably get someone who reads this thread and flames the Chinaman. You see, I don't care. It doesn't matter to me what anyone thinks of me except God. So, here goes...

First, a properly setup Linux system will multi-task much better than a properly setup Windoze system. If yours isn't, then the Linux system isn't properly setup. RedHat is going to be hampered in that respect because of the way they built it. It's basically designed to attract Windoze users by being a GUI based distro. If it were the only Linux, I'd probably just run Windoze.

I started with RedHat and disliked it. The reasons are many, but basically it was too much like Windoze with the GUI stuff hiding what was happening with the OS. And installing apps with that RPM system always caused me problems. I think the Linux jargon is "dependency hell." I simply call it bad design. I never figured out how to tweak and change RedHat to make it run correctly. IMO it's a very bad representation of Linux. And yes, it ran sluggish compared to my W2K system, but I build and repair comps, and know how to tweak Windoze to a degree that most average uses do not. Still, some of the smartest Linux men out there are using RedHat, so it's just a matter of what you want to learn in order to change the system to suit your personal needs and desires.

Which is a point I'd like to make. Windoze is NOT customizable. It is designed by Micro$loth to run their way, which is a grossly inefficient way. They have taken the personal out of Personal Computer. And they are wicked and evil to the core! If they can't buy it, they'll steal it, and always lie about it! End of M$ rant...

We must remember that Linux is just the kernel, and these distributions all add to the kernel their own packages and installers and what-have-you to make it a distribution. So it's going to work differently from distro to distro.

From RedHat I went to Debian. Much nicer distro, and it allows a very basic install with a minimal amount of packages. It has three branches - stable, testing, and unstable. The stable branch has old packages. They have been used and tested and proven to work, so lots of people use this for a server. The unstable contains newer packages, and usually they are as stable as the latest packages you get with other distros. The unstable has packages that are the latest releases. They don't always break, but sometimes can. The only problem I had with Debian was in getting new apps. I ran testing and some unstable, but came to the point where I could only get KDE from stable, and doing that meant changing a bunch of libraries and stuff on my system that would break packages I already had installed. This was because Debian has a whole lot of maintainers and developers, and they argued and couldn't agree on stuff. So I left them...

My choices from there were either Slackware or Gentoo. Seeing that with Gentoo you have to install from the internet, and then compile everything from source, I looked closer. And I found a lot of threads where people had problems just getting Gentoo properly setup with everything they wanted. IMO it looks like a distro for programmers, and others who have lots of time to spend compiling software. I have to output so much work that I can't take a lot of time to install everything. So I chose Slackware.

That was the best Linux decision for me. The Slackware Linux distribution is the oldest running Linux distro. There is basically one man behind Slackware, and I think all the decisions must go through him - and that is Patrick Volkerding. FWIW I have never had one single problem with any of the packages that Pat puts in Slackware. If you get a Slack CD, everything that comes with it will just work. If you want the latest and greatest software, you can get packages from Slackware/current. In fact, Slack has a new Package Browser system. Read the philosophy of Slackware.I've often read that running Slackware will teach you Linux, whereas running RedHat, Mandrake, SuSE, or some other commercial distributions will teach you those distributions only. I don't have a lot of experience, but I do see many posts from those distros (and Fedora, the new RedHat) where the normal way of fixing a problem won't work. You have to use some other method specific to the distribution.

IMO if you want to migrate from Windoze to Linux - you will find the journey to be rigorous, the learning curve steep if you have only a GUI background, the documentation esoteric a lot of times, but the system much better than Windoze from the standpoints of performance and security. My Slack boxen (all 4) run better than the best tweaked Windoze OS I've ever run. And I don't know as much about tweaking Slack as I did about tweaking Windoze.

You can get almost any distribution by downloading an ISO image and burning one or more CDs. You can purchase a CD of a distribution for very cheap.

So, if I may offer a bit of advice - if you want to migrate, check out some distros at DistroWatch and in the Distro Reviews section here at LQ. Then when you decide what to use, start keeping good records of what you do. Don't always jump at the first piece of advice you get in a forum or mailing list post. Cross-reference the information. Check out some of the links available at LQ, and read some information to learn Linux. Then note what apps you use in Windoze, and what hardware, and work on one issue at a time until you get it all working. That's been my biggest headaches and heartahces with Linux - trying to replace everything I've used in Windoze for years all at once in Linux - with NO Linux background.

Hope this helps. If it doesn't, email me for a full refund of your purchase price.

NB: This is just my opinion, and is not shared by LinuxQuestions.org. No one has to agree with me except my daughter, who is 3 and learning Linux - but will NEVER learn Windoze...