LinuxQuestions.org
Register a domain and help support LQ
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Newbie
User Name
Password
Linux - Newbie This Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question? If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 11-05-2002, 02:10 AM   #1
greg32
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 3

Rep: Reputation: 0
Talking i386, i686, kernels....


Hi, very new to linux. So far like it, but don't understand it too well.
Have searched the achives, but came up with nothing so here it is:
Wanted to know, what is the difference between a kernel built around i386 or i686 architechture? I am using RH8, it came with kernel 2.4.18-14, using i386, and when I use the up2date feature to upgrade any software, it has the 2.4.18-17.8.0 kernel which has i686 next to it as an option to update.

Also, are all kernels standard amongst all linux systems, or do they each have their own versions. When an update becomes available, is that applicable to all makes of linux, or just one.

Also, linux is linux yeah, so what is the difference between say Red Hat, and Mandrake as an example??

any info would be good,

thanks Greg
 
Old 11-05-2002, 02:45 AM   #2
GT I.N.C
Member
 
Registered: May 2002
Location: Australia, Sydney, St.Clair
Distribution: Rh 7.3
Posts: 836

Rep: Reputation: 30
i386 and i686 are different architectures of your processor say pentium 3 and 4...someone can give a more in depth explanation....

No kernels can be used among any distrobution, well any kernel you download....but some distrobutions have there own kernel

And the difference between mandrake red hat etc. is just that you could say there different 'flavours'

#Garry

p.s. Welcome to LQ and the world of Linux!
 
Old 11-05-2002, 03:11 AM   #3
greg32
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 3

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
Garry,
thanks for your reply. I thought it might have been the difference between type of machine. I would have thought that my machine having a pentium 4 processor, the software would have installed the more powerful kernel. From default it installed as i386, but this might be just the standard build that RH8 comes with.

Also, when I downloaded the new kernel (2.4.18-17.8.0 i686) through the up2date program in RH8, it installed allright, and told me that I should re-boot my machine as soon as possible to test the new kernel, but when it re-boots, it is still using the old one. When I go into the boot manager (lilo) configuration, it has the new kernel listed, but still uses the old one as default, and when I set the new one as default, it won't let me. How do I go about setting the new kenel to work?

thanks for the welcome.

regards Greg
 
Old 11-05-2002, 03:43 AM   #4
GT I.N.C
Member
 
Registered: May 2002
Location: Australia, Sydney, St.Clair
Distribution: Rh 7.3
Posts: 836

Rep: Reputation: 30
Hmmm sorry i'm not very good at kernels, but i'm sure if you searched around on the forums you will definetly find something, or if someone is willing enough to guide you through i'm sure they would.

Cheers

#Garry
 
Old 11-05-2002, 04:30 AM   #5
Azrael
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2002
Location: Germany
Distribution: SuSE 8.0
Posts: 96

Rep: Reputation: 15
Did you change your lilo.conf and then run lilo (not as me, who tends towards forgetting it)?
 
Old 11-05-2002, 05:10 AM   #6
greg32
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 3

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
I didn't bother running it. All I have to do is click somewhere else on the screen, and the (Default) moves from the new kernel to the old one again. It doesn't hold my setting at all. I am probably doing something wrong, but buggered if I know what. As I said, very new to linux.

regards Greg
 
Old 11-05-2002, 07:28 AM   #7
Azrael
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2002
Location: Germany
Distribution: SuSE 8.0
Posts: 96

Rep: Reputation: 15
I suppose you use a config tool from redhat. Are you running it as root?
Or try editing the file /etc/lilo.conf by hand. If there is a line starting with default=someimage change it to your new kernel image. If this line does not exists add it somewhere above the first image=... line and then run lilo.
 
Old 11-05-2002, 07:59 AM   #8
acid_kewpie
Moderator
 
Registered: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Distribution: Gentoo, RHEL, Fedora, Centos
Posts: 43,417

Rep: Reputation: 1974Reputation: 1974Reputation: 1974Reputation: 1974Reputation: 1974Reputation: 1974Reputation: 1974Reputation: 1974Reputation: 1974Reputation: 1974Reputation: 1974
386 = 386 of course
686 = pentium 2 and equivalents
 
Old 11-05-2002, 10:25 AM   #9
Thymox
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2001
Location: Plymouth, England.
Distribution: Debian + Ubuntu
Posts: 4,358

Rep: Reputation: 57
But anything compiled to work on an i386 machine should also work without a hitch on anything above that, so it would also work in an i686.
 
Old 11-05-2002, 10:32 AM   #10
Bert
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2001
Location: 406292E 290755N
Distribution: GNU/Linux Slackware 8.1, Redhat 8.0, LFS 4.0
Posts: 1,004

Rep: Reputation: 46
Intel have been sluts when it comes to incrementing architecture numbers. It used to be a useful combination measure of the bus and processor speeds, now it's just a marketing wheeze.
If a pentium machine is an i586, why is a Pentium III called an i686? Think Sun's Java 2 vs Java 1.3.

Bert
 
Old 11-05-2002, 10:37 AM   #11
Thymox
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2001
Location: Plymouth, England.
Distribution: Debian + Ubuntu
Posts: 4,358

Rep: Reputation: 57
Hehe! So, if the P is an i586, a PII is a i686, the PIII should be, by all reasoning, an i786, and the PIV should be an i886. Presumably then, their next incarnation, the PV would be an i986, and the PVI would be an... i1086? Would that be a 'ten eight six' or what?
 
Old 11-13-2002, 02:25 AM   #12
sbrown
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2002
Location: Calgary, Canada
Distribution: Red Hat 7.3/Slackware 8.1
Posts: 19

Rep: Reputation: 0
Just to be compleatly irritating, the correct number is 80386, 80486, 80586, and 80686

Now it makes sence that a P Pro, P2, P3 and P4 are still i686 arch because the numbers are incremented on a major revision, the core of a P3 is still a P2, it just runs faster and includes an additional instruction set to the enhanced ia-32, and MMX, called SSE. But MMX and SSE and the other addons to the core instruction set did not change the core. Thats also why when you build a kernel, and choose P4 it still says i686, but it will run optimised on a P4, and possibly not on any other processor because its also using the SSE2, SSE, MMX, and what ever other instruction set optimixations and system calls, which processors previous to it wont understand.
 
Old 11-13-2002, 09:07 AM   #13
peeples
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2002
Location: Wichita Falls, TX
Distribution: tried a lot of 'em, now using kubuntu
Posts: 180

Rep: Reputation: 30
After doing a bit of research on the 'net, I think the compiler optimizations should be set as stated on my webpage here (and follow the optimizations link). Yeah, the PPro, PII and PIII are all 686, but from what I read the PIV is a 786. And the Athlon is a whole 'nuther story...

I could be wrong, and just qouting inaccurate info, so feel free to correct me...
 
Old 11-13-2002, 10:35 AM   #14
Thymox
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2001
Location: Plymouth, England.
Distribution: Debian + Ubuntu
Posts: 4,358

Rep: Reputation: 57
Quote:
Originally posted by sbrown
A P-Pro, PII, PIII and PIV are still i686 arch because the numbers are incremented on a major revision, the core of a P3 is still a P2, it just runs faster and includes an additional instruction set to the enhanced ia-32, and MMX, called SSE.
OK, so a PIII is the same core as a PII but with more instructions. What's the difference, then, between a P and a PII? I thought that adding more instructions was changing the core?
 
Old 11-13-2002, 02:36 PM   #15
Edward78
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2002
Distribution: OpenSuSE 11
Posts: 441

Rep: Reputation: 30
SuSE needs a kernel update util
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
i686 vs. i386 andzerger Linux - Distributions 1 02-22-2004 09:26 PM
is celeron 500 an i686 ? if so how to move from i386 to i686 raft Linux - Hardware 1 12-22-2003 07:58 AM
i686 vs i386 NewtonIX Linux - Newbie 4 11-08-2003 05:04 PM
i386 or i686? .300WSM Linux - Newbie 5 10-22-2003 09:47 PM
i686 vs i386 psyklops Linux - General 4 12-05-2002 09:23 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:38 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration