Which distro for i686 architecture?

NewYorkGiant · 03-18-2016, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suicidaleggroll

You really need to get the actual CPU model number. Can you go into the bios and grab that information? "Xeon MP" doesn't really help.

It could be that it doesn't support PAE, which will really cut back on your available options, as almost all 32-bit Linux distros use a PAE kernel.

I happen to have an extra XEON MP 2.5GHz CPU on hand. Do these numbers help?

2500MP/1ML3/400/1.475V
SL6Z2 COSTA RICA
3408A700-0064

HP lists a few Linux OSes as being compatible..Red Hat being one. Shouldn't derivitives of Red Hat (x86_32) be compatible?

Which distros support "non-PAE" kernels?

I am learning that these particular machines may have the PAE kernel disabled by default...but I did change a setting in the BIOS from Windows to Linux specifically so shouldn't that have enabled the PAE kernel?

johnsfine · 03-18-2016, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewYorkGiant

I thought 8GB of RAM would be enough for any preliminary OS and not be a bottleneck whatsoever.
...
How do you know this? Please explain? Especially the part about how you think that this legacy system isn't too primative (IA-32) for any current LINUX distro? Shouldn't any old x86_32 distro work then?

I meant that older IA-32 designs could not support more than 3.5GB of ram (in some cases even less). By the time 8GB of ram could be used in IA-32, those CPU's were very advanced (within the 32 bit range) and did not lack any feature that any i686 Linux would care about.

So I remain confident that the problems you are having with i686 Linux are with the display adapter, and not the CPU. Many Linux distributions don't have install-time support for many display adapters. It takes some Linux expertise to kludge past the lack of display adapter support during install in order to download the required display adapter support after the main install. There are a number of VESA and related options when starting a Linux install that tell the installer to try to use the display adapter in some more generic way (that typically works even when full featured use of the same display adapter doesn't). But those details vary by distribution and I don't remember them anyway.

Quote:

Which distros support "non-PAE" kernels?

non-PAE means max memory is 3.5GB. So I think you don't want that (you want PAE, which is now the default in almost all i686 Linux).

NewYorkGiant · 03-18-2016, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnsfine

I meant that older IA-32 designs could not support more than 3.5GB of ram (in some cases even less). By the time 8GB of ram could be used in IA-32, those CPU's were very advanced (within the 32 bit range) and did not lack any feature that any i686 Linux would care about.

So I remain confident that the problems you are having with i686 Linux are with the display adapter, and not the CPU. Many Linux distributions don't have install-time support for many display adapters. It takes some Linux expertise to kludge past the lack of display adapter support during install in order to download the required display adapter support after the main install. There are a number of VESA and related options when starting a Linux install that tell the installer to try to use the display adapter in some more generic way (that typically works even when full featured use of the same display adapter doesn't). But those details vary by distribution and I don't remember them anyway.

non-PAE means max memory is 3.5GB. So I think you don't want that (you want PAE, which is now the default in almost all i686 Linux).

Thank you. So, now knowing that this machines graphics capabilities are unsupported with some Linux distros...should I to try to find (or does there exist) an i686 distro that contains ATI/AMD compatible graphics drivers out of the box?

suicidaleggroll · 03-18-2016, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewYorkGiant

I happen to have an extra XEON MP 2.5GHz CPU on hand. Do these numbers help?

2500MP/1ML3/400/1.475V
SL6Z2 COSTA RICA
3408A700-0064

Yep!

It's the SL6Z2:
http://ark.intel.com/products/27301/...he-400-MHz-FSB

I'm not finding any information about whether or not that CPU supports PAE though. If the system has 8 GB of RAM then it has got to...I would think. But that is one old processor, likely older than several of the members here.

Either way, Debian 32-bit is available with a non-PAE kernel, I've used it recently on systems that couldn't use PAE.

I agree with johnsfine that the problem is likely the display adapter.

jefro · 03-18-2016, 08:08 PM

I do have one xeon workstation that has that goofy 32 bit running 64 bit. I think Intel only made them for about 2 months. It will not run a modern 64 bit linux. The processor speeds back there were maybe 2.1G. I get the feeling that by they time speeds went to 2.5G the processor was fully 64 bit.

One problem with old stuff is that you have to recreate all issues sometimes. Yes, Suse would have been a supported os. There wasn't any open suse at that time but you might be able to use SuseStudio.com to get a slightly older version of Enterprise Suse to try.

I'd also consider an old Knoppix cd to test. It ran on almost anything. Maybe Knoppix 3.4 to 5. You can even pxe boot from a different system. You boot lan computer to knoppix, start knoppix terminal server then pxe boot to knoppix in client. Some dvd versions didn't work right.

NewYorkGiant · 03-20-2016, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rokytnji

MX - 15 32 bit iso

md5sum

Cuz I and others think it is the bees knees. That is why. Plus newbie friendly with a friendly community

http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/mx-15.html
http://www.ocsmag.com/2016/03/09/the...little-distro/

I gave you the direct link so you do not have to over think anything.

md5sum = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33QT7xohUvI

install video and other useful videos from the same authour

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwyzTloPyP4

The forum members at Mepis forums are tolerant and friendly towards new users and the waiting time on answers there is not bad at all

http://forum.mepiscommunity.org/

Happy Trails, Rok

When I boot from USB, this is what happens. Loading Linux Kernel freezes at 26% for pae...and freezes at 100% for non pae

rokytnji · 03-20-2016, 07:01 PM

So what happens when you try changing F key options on bootup. The F keys are cheat code boot options.

Posted from my

Code:

$ inxi -Fxz
System:    Host: biker Kernel: 4.2.1-antix.2-686-pae i686 (32 bit gcc: 4.9.2)
           Desktop: IceWM 1.3.8 Distro: antiX-15-V_386-full Killah P 30 June 2015
Machine:   System: Dell product: Latitude E4310 v: 0001
           Mobo: Dell model: 0T6M8G v: A01 Bios: Dell v: A03 date: 07/08/2010
CPU:       Dual core Intel Core i5 M 520 (-HT-MCP-) cache: 3072 KB
           flags: (lm nx pae sse sse2 sse3 sse4_1 sse4_2 ssse3 vmx) bmips: 9581
           clock speeds: max: 2400 MHz 1: 1333 MHz 2: 1466 MHz 3: 1199 MHz
           4: 1333 MHz
Graphics:  Card: Intel Core Processor Integrated Graphics Controller
           bus-ID: 00:02.0
           Display Server: X.Org 1.16.4 drivers: intel (unloaded: fbdev,vesa)
           Resolution: 1366x768@60.00hz
           GLX Renderer: Mesa DRI Intel Ironlake Mobile x86/MMX/SSE2
           GLX Version: 2.1 Mesa 10.3.2 Direct Rendering: Yes
Audio:     Card Intel 5 Series/3400 Series High Definition Audio
           driver: snd_hda_intel bus-ID: 00:1b.0
           Sound: Advanced Linux Sound Architecture v: k4.2.1-antix.2-686-pae
Network:   Card-1: Intel 82577LM Gigabit Network Connection
           driver: e1000e v: 3.2.5-k port: 6040 bus-ID: 00:19.0
           IF: eth0 state: down mac: <filter>
           Card-2: Intel Centrino Advanced-N 6200 driver: iwlwifi bus-ID: 02:00.0
           IF: wlan0 state: up mac: <filter>
Drives:    HDD Total Size: 60.0GB (45.9% used)
           ID-1: /dev/sda model: KINGSTON_SV300S3 size: 60.0GB
Partition: ID-1: / size: 7.6G used: 5.1G (71%) fs: ext3 dev: /dev/sda2
           ID-2: /home size: 48G used: 21G (47%) fs: ext3 dev: /dev/sda1
Sensors:   System Temperatures: cpu: 59.0C mobo: N/A
           Fan Speeds (in rpm): cpu: N/A
Info:      Processes: 147 Uptime: 1:02 Memory: 568.5/8027.1MB
           Init: SysVinit runlevel: 5 Gcc sys: 4.9.2
           Client: Shell (bash 4.3.301) inxi: 2.2.31

32 bit operating system on a 64 bit system laptop. That sees all 8 gig of my ram.
I figure inexperience is the main road block here. Not hardware or iso.

NewYorkGiant · 03-20-2016, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jefro

I do have one xeon workstation that has that goofy 32 bit running 64 bit. I think Intel only made them for about 2 months. It will not run a modern 64 bit linux. The processor speeds back there were maybe 2.1G. I get the feeling that by they time speeds went to 2.5G the processor was fully 64 bit.

One problem with old stuff is that you have to recreate all issues sometimes. Yes, Suse would have been a supported os. There wasn't any open suse at that time but you might be able to use SuseStudio.com to get a slightly older version of Enterprise Suse to try.

I'd also consider an old Knoppix cd to test. It ran on almost anything. Maybe Knoppix 3.4 to 5. You can even pxe boot from a different system. You boot lan computer to knoppix, start knoppix terminal server then pxe boot to knoppix in client. Some dvd versions didn't work right.

This is what happens when I boot Knoppix 7.2

rokytnji · 03-20-2016, 07:08 PM

Your screen shot there says your knoppix image is broken. No wonder. Like I said earlier. Inexperience.

Don't take my posts in a bad way. I just call things like I see them.

NewYorkGiant · 03-20-2016, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rokytnji

Your screen shot there says your knoppix image is broken. No wonder. Like I said earlier. Inexperience.

Don't take my posts in a bad way. I just call things like I see them.

I never claimed to be experienced. That is why this thread is in "Linux - Newbie"

suicidaleggroll · 03-20-2016, 08:04 PM

Honestly I'm wondering why you're even bothering with this machine. I would be very surprised if it was any more powerful than a <$100 single board ARM computer...a $30 Raspberry Pi 3 would probably go toe-to-toe with it in compute power, literally, and would consume so much less energy that it would pay for itself in electricity costs within a month.

>13 year old server hardware is so ridiculously obsolete there's really no point. It's not going to be fast or powerful, it won't be quiet, it won't be able to run any modern OS/software, and it's going to use so much power that it will be very expensive to run.

NewYorkGiant · 03-20-2016, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suicidaleggroll

Honestly I'm wondering why you're even bothering with this machine. I would be very surprised if it was any more powerful than a <$100 single board ARM computer...a $30 Raspberry Pi 3 would probably go toe-to-toe with it in compute power, literally, and would consume so much less energy that it would pay for itself in electricity costs within a month.

>13 year old server hardware is so ridiculously obsolete there's really no point. It's not going to be fast or powerful, it won't be quiet, it won't be able to run any modern OS/software, and it's going to use so much power that it will be very expensive to run.

I originally mentioned that I had inherited this legacy machine and wanted to see if it could be repurposed as a desktop. I also want to learn about using Linux based OSes and think, why not try one out on a machine that I had been given? (in case I screw something up...I don't lose anything of real value) My initial research indicated that this machine was compatible with some Linux based OSes like Red Hat Linux, Red Hat Enterprise Linux, SuSE Linux Enterprise Server, United Linux, etc. I wanted to see if I could find a version of Linux to use this server as a desktop.

I had no idea that finding a Linux based operating system to run this machine would be this difficult. Linux has been around a long time, no? I figured that I should be able to find a compatible .iso file, burn it to CD, and voila...I'd have a new (to me) machine with a new (to me) operating system that I could use and learn more about while using it.

I already figured this server wouldn't be the most efficient machine in terms of power consumption but that's really not an issue.

NewYorkGiant · 03-20-2016, 10:52 PM

Now that I have used PLOP to boot from USB, it seems that any CD-R that I try to boot from using the CD drive says that "An installation step failed. You can try to run the failing item again from the menu, or skip it and choose something else. The failing step is Detect and Mount CD-ROM." OR "No common CD rom drive was detected. You may need to load additional drivers from removable media, such as a driver floppy." But, if I put the PLOP CD in, it runs and allows me to try to boot from USB

jefro · 03-21-2016, 03:55 PM

I don't trust plop.

There is a lot going on when you try to install stuff like that. That is why you are getting the fail on that /dev/sr0

Does this have a cd and or dvd reader installed? If so then just take out the dvd.

You generally get a network installer for major distro's. It's a small cd image (relatively) that can use network to install and boot from wan.

Consider SuseStudo.com also. You can build your system and deploy it in a number of ways.

suicidaleggroll · 03-21-2016, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewYorkGiant

I originally mentioned that I had inherited this legacy machine and wanted to see if it could be repurposed as a space-heater.

Fixed it for you

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewYorkGiant

I also want to learn about using Linux based OSes and think, why not try one out on a machine that I had been given? (in case I screw something up...I don't lose anything of real value)

You'd be better off with a virtual machine IMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewYorkGiant

My initial research indicated that this machine was compatible with some Linux based OSes like Red Hat Linux, Red Hat Enterprise Linux, SuSE Linux Enterprise Server, United Linux, etc.

It sure was, back in 2004. Nowadays...not so much. It would be like trying to install Windows 10 on a machine that was designed for Windows ME or an early release of XP, you're likely going to have to do a lot of hunting to find a combo that works correctly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewYorkGiant

I had no idea that finding a Linux based operating system to run this machine would be this difficult. Linux has been around a long time, no?

But this is an obscenely old machine. Driver support for hardware that is all but dead and buried is generally stripped out of new releases to keep bloat under control. You might have better luck if you dropped back to an old, barely-still-supported server-based distro. Maybe CentOS 5 or Debian 6? Something that was released at least in the same decade as that hardware.