SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I downloaded the iso from the site you provided and installed. The lastlog file is 292 bytes with only the root account. I used ext2 file system. Try deleting the file and then use touch to recreate it. It should report 0 bytes until an account logs in again.
On your other messages, it appears that the new slack has a new startup process to support hot plug equipment. The /etc/rc.d/rc.hotplug script that uses /etc/hotplug directory. Since this is new I haven't had the time to review it all of it as yet. But it might be your modules are being called from that startup sequence. My install loaded all kinds of modules that I normally have to load manually. The /etc/modules.conf file is still empty and all the modules /etc/rc.d/rc.modules are remarked out. Perhaps it will help you to locate where the modules are being loaded.
Re: The /var/log/lastlog question ... this drove me nuts for a couple of days; same problem, big file, but why? Here are a couple of exerpts of info i found on google.com, may be of help:
**************
"... There are some files that may be big and are often changing, but aren't log files. Don't mess with them. (Redhat Linux pathnames given here.)
/var/log/lastlog
Sparse file, indexed by UID, giving info on last login for each user
Don't copy it!
No need to truncate -- it's not using all the space that ls -l says it is
Use du -s lastlog to see how big it really is ..."
*************
And ...
**************
"Wow, that's the worst explanation of sparse files I've ever seen.
Sparse files were actually a space saving "trick" introduced in Unix
filesystems a long, long time ago. The need sprang from hashed files,
which is probably where "index" got into your muddled explanation.
A hash is an access/storage method where a mathematical function is
applied to a key. The number that results from that function is used as
the record number, or offset of the file. For example, suppose we had
the keys mary and tom (with associated data, of course), Our hash
function turns the word "mary" into the number 45, and turns "tom" into
128. Pretending that the data stored is 512 bytes for each record,
you'd find mary's data 512 * 45 bytes from the start of the file, and
tom's at 512 * 128 bytes. This sort of "indexing" with hashed keys
gives incredibly fast access to records (there are issues with how to
deal with keys that hash to the same value, biut we'll ignore that
here).
A good hash function is going to generate widely disparate numbers
(that's one of the ways to minimize the duplication problem). So rather
than 45 and 128, we'd really get something like 2 and 438,785. Now
suppose that these were the only data stored in the file so far: it
would be a pretty big file, over 200 megabytes (433,785 * 512), but
there's really only 1024 bytes of real data in it- a whole bunch of
wasted space.
Now we turn to the way Unix file systems work. Without getting into too
much detail, and without getting too much into the confusion of
indirect, double indirect etc here, the Unix inode has pointers to the
places where a files data can be found. The first ten pointers point
directly to data blocks, the next points to indirect blocks which in
turn point to real data blocks and so on.
So, the "mary" data ends up in the second data block (assuming 1k blocks
here) and the "tom" data ends way out in one of the double indirect
blocks somewehre. None of the other pointers are being used. No data
needs to be stored, so no need to waste space: this is a sparse file.
If you look at it with "ls -l" it looks like it's 200+ MB, but if you
removed it, you wouldn't gain 200 MB of space. If you do something that
reads it sequentially, the driver just returns nulls for the data that
isn't there. And that's the problem: ordinary tape utilities write
those nulls, using up 200+ MB of tape, and if it is restored with the
same non-aware utility, the data blocks actually get allocated and
filled with ascii 0's- now you really have used 200 MB of space.
The Supertars are smarter than this and do not write or restore the
nulls ..."
I used du -hs lastlog and it SHOW 8K !! So supposedly its really 8k can I assume that the type of files system I used cause this problem? I believe others is using different files system I am using Reiser.
AFIK, du -hs shows the REAL file usage, even though things like ls -al show something different; it is all in the way the file is organized, as was explained in my previous post. I don't think the TYPE of file system makes any difference ... I have not played with reiserfs, nor do I know much more about this issue .... just enough to be dangerous, I guess. However, I don't think this is a PROBLEM ... it is just that /var/log/lastlog is a "unix sparse file" layout. Again, other than my previous post as an explanation, I can't offer more.
I am going to compile the kernel to solve my 1st problem. I download http://www.slackware.at/data/slackw...20-noarch-5.tgz and use installpkg to install the package. Then it create a folder call linux and 2.4.20. I do not wish to create a new boot, I wish to overwrite the current kernel.Can I just go into linux folder and : make mrproper
make menuconfig
make dep
make clean
make bzImage
make modules
and lastly make modules_install.
I have tried it but dont seem like I am booting up the new kernel configurations.
Do anyone know if I were to compile the kernel to solve my watchdog issue which module should I not install? I remember I didnt see any modules mention about watchdog when I tried the last time.
If you remove the support for watchdog timers...the modules will not be installed, nor will there be support un the kernel. This is what you want in your case.
This is located in the Character Devices section of your kernel config menu. Completely remove Watchdog Timer support. Just be sure to recompile.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.