On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 06:55:10AM +0100, Jason Steadman wrote:

On 16 June 2012 06:46, gt wrote:

...

Hey guys, after upgrading to 295.59 from 295.53, i am seeing the following in the dmesg output:

NVRM: Your system is not currently configured to drive a VGA console NVRM: on the primary VGA device. The NVIDIA Linux graphics driver NVRM: requires the use of a text-mode VGA console. Use of other console NVRM: drivers including, but not limited to, vesafb, may result in NVRM: corruption and stability problems, and is not supported.

Any idea what this is about. Seems to be about the framebuffer driver. But earlier no configuration was needed for that. Moreover the virtual console seems to be working fine.

Anyone else got a similar message in the log?

UEFI install by any chance? I ask because the message correlates to http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2543252&postcount=13

Nope, no uefi. It's a pentium 4, with nvidia geforce 210 card.

On 06/15/2012 11:33 PM, gt wrote:

On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 06:55:10AM +0100, Jason Steadman wrote:

...

On 16 June 2012 06:46, gt wrote:

...

Hey guys, after upgrading to 295.59 from 295.53, i am seeing the following in the dmesg output:

NVRM: Your system is not currently configured to drive a VGA console NVRM: on the primary VGA device. The NVIDIA Linux graphics driver NVRM: requires the use of a text-mode VGA console. Use of other console NVRM: drivers including, but not limited to, vesafb, may result in NVRM: corruption and stability problems, and is not supported.

Any idea what this is about. Seems to be about the framebuffer driver. But earlier no configuration was needed for that. Moreover the virtual console seems to be working fine.

Anyone else got a similar message in the log?

UEFI install by any chance? I ask because the message correlates to http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2543252&postcount=13

Nope, no uefi. It's a pentium 4, with nvidia geforce 210 card.

Are you also seeing this in dmesg as well? nvidia 0000:01:00.0: power state changed by ACPI to D0 nvidia 0000:01:00.0: power state changed by ACPI to D0 vgaarb: device changed decodes: PCI:0000:01:00.0,olddecodes=io+mem,decodes=none:owns=io+mem NVRM: loading NVIDIA UNIX x86_64 Kernel Module 295.59 Wed Jun 6 21:19:40 PDT 2012

On 06/16/2012 05:45 AM, gt wrote:

On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 01:40:08AM -0700, Don deJuan wrote:

...

On 06/15/2012 11:33 PM, gt wrote:

...

On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 06:55:10AM +0100, Jason Steadman wrote:

...

On 16 June 2012 06:46, gt wrote:

...

Hey guys, after upgrading to 295.59 from 295.53, i am seeing the following in the dmesg output:

NVRM: Your system is not currently configured to drive a VGA console NVRM: on the primary VGA device. The NVIDIA Linux graphics driver NVRM: requires the use of a text-mode VGA console. Use of other console NVRM: drivers including, but not limited to, vesafb, may result in NVRM: corruption and stability problems, and is not supported.

Any idea what this is about. Seems to be about the framebuffer driver. But earlier no configuration was needed for that. Moreover the virtual console seems to be working fine.

Anyone else got a similar message in the log?

UEFI install by any chance? I ask because the message correlates to http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2543252&postcount=13

Nope, no uefi. It's a pentium 4, with nvidia geforce 210 card.

Are you also seeing this in dmesg as well?

nvidia 0000:01:00.0: power state changed by ACPI to D0 nvidia 0000:01:00.0: power state changed by ACPI to D0 vgaarb: device changed decodes: PCI:0000:01:00.0,olddecodes=io+mem,decodes=none:owns=io+mem NVRM: loading NVIDIA UNIX x86_64 Kernel Module 295.59 Wed Jun 6 21:19:40 PDT 2012

No, i am not getting any similar message.

Are you still seeing the output in the newest one that came after this update push? I am still seeing it. Not sure I really get what the issue even is.

On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 01:19:58PM +0300, Ionut Biru wrote:

On 06/16/2012 08:46 AM, gt wrote:

...

Hey guys, after upgrading to 295.59 from 295.53, i am seeing the following in the dmesg output:

NVRM: Your system is not currently configured to drive a VGA console NVRM: on the primary VGA device. The NVIDIA Linux graphics driver NVRM: requires the use of a text-mode VGA console. Use of other console NVRM: drivers including, but not limited to, vesafb, may result in NVRM: corruption and stability problems, and is not supported.

Any idea what this is about. Seems to be about the framebuffer driver. But earlier no configuration was needed for that. Moreover the virtual console seems to be working fine.

Anyone else got a similar message in the log?

you have omitted what i the most important. your boot list parameters and lsmod.

boot parameter (grub legacy): kernel /boot/vmlinuz-linux root=/dev/disk/by-uuid/<> ro edd=off resume=/dev/sda2 vga=792 lsmod output: Module Size Used by lm85 14753 0 hwmon_vid 2280 1 lm85 snd_hda_codec_hdmi 21248 4 nvidia 10938779 40 sg 20881 0 snd_hda_codec_realtek 51533 1 snd_pcm_oss 33381 0 snd_mixer_oss 12863 2 snd_pcm_oss snd_hda_intel 20208 1 snd_hda_codec 80701 3 snd_hda_codec_realtek,snd_hda_codec_hdmi,snd_hda_intel ppdev 4750 0 nfs 232277 0 nfs_acl 1931 1 nfs snd_pcm 61237 4 snd_pcm_oss,snd_hda_codec_hdmi,snd_hda_codec,snd_hda_intel lockd 52245 1 nfs parport_pc 26633 0 snd_page_alloc 5901 2 snd_pcm,snd_hda_intel snd_hwdep 4746 1 snd_hda_codec snd_timer 14902 1 snd_pcm i2c_i801 7088 0 8139too 18023 0 snd 44426 9 snd_hda_codec_realtek,snd_pcm_oss,snd_hwdep,snd_timer,snd_hda_codec_hdmi,snd_pcm,snd_hda_codec,snd_hda_intel,snd_mixer_oss i2c_core 16653 3 lm85,i2c_i801,nvidia parport 26095 2 ppdev,parport_pc intel_agp 8720 0 mii 3439 1 8139too iTCO_wdt 10705 0 auth_rpcgss 25802 1 nfs microcode 8825 0 intel_gtt 11229 1 intel_agp processor 23783 0 button 3614 0 iTCO_vendor_support 1545 1 iTCO_wdt agpgart 21967 3 nvidia,intel_agp,intel_gtt soundcore 4378 2 snd evdev 7630 4 sunrpc 153824 4 nfs,auth_rpcgss,lockd,nfs_acl fscache 36651 1 nfs ext4 385248 4 crc16 1091 1 ext4 jbd2 62437 1 ext4 mbcache 4345 1 ext4 usbhid 31733 0 hid 67113 1 usbhid sd_mod 26959 7 sr_mod 13180 0 cdrom 30472 1 sr_mod pata_acpi 2388 0 ata_generic 2391 0 uhci_hcd 19776 0 ata_piix 18776 5 libata 146055 3 pata_acpi,ata_generic,ata_piix scsi_mod 112541 4 sg,libata,sd_mod,sr_mod ehci_hcd 36086 0 usbcore 123297 4 uhci_hcd,ehci_hcd,usbhid usb_common 622 1 usbcore

On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 10:16:55AM -0700, Don deJuan wrote:

Are you still seeing the output in the newest one that came after this update push? I am still seeing it. Not sure I really get what the issue even is.

Just upgraded to the latest driver, and yes i am still seeing it as well. The issue is that nvidia has decided to warn people that these framebuffer drivers may cause problems. They weren't supported earlier too, but worked anyhow. But recently they are causing problems for some people so nvidia thought it would be best to warn people about the use of these drivers. You must be having a vga= entry in your boot parameters, as do i. I tried with vga=0 and didn't see this message. See the following message by Uroš for more details. On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 10:44:10AM +0000, Uroš Vampl wrote:

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2561806&postcount=39

Basically, vesafb with the nvidia driver was never supported. It used to work, it may still work, but that's by pure chance.

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 6:25 AM, Don deJuan wrote:

I do not seem to find any mention of VGA in the boot parameters. The only place I see it mentioned is in grub.cfg where it loads the modules before you even put your kernel info (insmod vga).

But I added what you said vga=0, to the kernel parameters and the message

is now gone.

Maybe you are using GRUB2 with the GFX options this link talks about: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/GRUB2#Setting_the_framebuffer_resolutio... That probably has a similar effect to the "vga=" option in the command line. Removing them, or adding "vga=0" (or both, to be extra safe) should do. -- Rodrigo

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Don deJuan wrote:

...

https://wiki.archlinux.org/**index.php/GRUB2#Setting_the_** framebuffer_resolutionhttps://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/GRUB2#Setting_the_framebuffer_resolutio...

That probably has a similar effect to the "vga=" option in the command line. Removing them, or adding "vga=0" (or both, to be extra safe) should do.

I am on grub2. Makes total sense now, for some reason I was not putting

Maybe you are using GRUB2 with the GFX options this link talks about: the GFX options together with the VGA.

Does that mean gfxmode should also =0 ? Instead of auto or a specific resolution?

GRUB2 documentation is notably difficult to read, but from http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/manual/html_node/Simple-configuration.html#... I guess that the relevant option to disable this feature is to use "GRUB_GFXPAYLOAD_LINUX=text" instead of "GRUB_GFXPAYLOAD_LINUX=keep". -- Rodrigo

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:25:07PM -0700, Don deJuan wrote:

On 06/18/2012 12:05 PM, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:

...

GRUB2 documentation is notably difficult to read, but from http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/manual/html_node/Simple-configuration.html#... I guess that the relevant option to disable this feature is to use "GRUB_GFXPAYLOAD_LINUX=text" instead of "GRUB_GFXPAYLOAD_LINUX=keep".

Thanks again for your input and time to find those links to share. The last with text was ticket for me. No need for vga=0 with that.

The only downfall though with having to do this is if I go to a different TTY the text is massive, I get why it is just sucks, I liked having normal size text when on the terminal.

Again thank you, hopefully Nvidia will get this sorted out soon and can go back to the old method.

I don't think nvidia is going to sort this out, hence the warning message. On the other hand, you can stick with the high resolution tty for now, as it is not guaranteed to break. If it does, then you can switch to the lower resolution.

On 06/19/2012 11:56 AM, Arno Gaboury wrote:

Hi all,

I plan to settle in the comimg months a web server to deliver many services to the trading community (I am myself a trader).

I daily use Arch as my system on my home box, and I must admit I am very satisfied by its strength and its very active and deep involved community. My plan is to first train building the website on a VM server, then go to a remote dedicated server.

Can you please give me some pro/against reasons for using Debian distro rather than Archlinux as a web server? Is there any provider offering Arch distro, as it seems it is hard, near impossible, to find one.

TY for your advises. I just want to add I am just a small level over the n00b status, let's say I am a n00b++, and learning Debian specificities can proove to be a waste of time.

On 06/19/2012 12:15 PM, Jean-Luc Bassereau wrote:

Le 19/06/2012 12:07, Arno Gaboury a écrit :

...

On 06/19/2012 11:56 AM, Arno Gaboury wrote:

...

Hi all,

I plan to settle in the comimg months a web server to deliver many services to the trading community (I am myself a trader).

I daily use Arch as my system on my home box, and I must admit I am very satisfied by its strength and its very active and deep involved community. My plan is to first train building the website on a VM server, then go to a remote dedicated server.

Can you please give me some pro/against reasons for using Debian distro rather than Archlinux as a web server? Is there any provider offering Arch distro, as it seems it is hard, near impossible, to find one.

TY for your advises. I just want to add I am just a small level over the n00b status, let's say I am a n00b++, and learning Debian specificities can proove to be a waste of time.

Depending on the webapps you wish to run, some of them might be very unpleased not to meet the "usual" distros. Furthermore, administrating a production Arch web server might be in my own opinion a time consuming activity (regarding the rolling release aspect). Especially if (like most of admins) you prefer to test updates on a "PreProd" server before applying them on production one. You may probably have a look on the ArchServer project.

I want the website to be first a place for trading ideas/opinions exchange, with usual stuffs as mailing list, forum,chat rooms or any kind of article publishing. I need to be easily able to publish technical analysis in image format. I want to be able to provide live feeds, quick links to ouside article. Then, I will probably enable some kind of private login, with acsess to customisable pages.Last would be to sell analysis and risk mangement software/Latex processed automated reporting. Nothing really fancy in fact.

On 06/19/2012 11:56 AM, Arno Gaboury wrote:

Hi all,

I plan to settle in the comimg months a web server to deliver many services to the trading community (I am myself a trader).

I daily use Arch as my system on my home box, and I must admit I am very satisfied by its strength and its very active and deep involved community. My plan is to first train building the website on a VM server, then go to a remote dedicated server.

Can you please give me some pro/against reasons for using Debian distro rather than Archlinux as a web server? Is there any provider offering Arch distro, as it seems it is hard, near impossible, to find one.

TY for your advises. I've been running an Arch web server for 3 years and there are absolutely no problems.

On 06/19/2012 04:14 PM, gt wrote:

Can you please elaborate how you manage the regular updates, especially kernel, udev, glibc etc. Do you hold back the upgrades to packages which require a restart?

This is exactly how I handle kernel updates. Afaik glibc and udev updates don't require reboot. -- Bartłomiej Piotrowski Arch Linux Trusted User http://archlinux.org/

On Tuesday 19 Jun 2012 16:31:49 Arno Gaboury wrote:

On 06/19/2012 04:20 PM, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:

...

On 06/19/2012 04:14 PM, gt wrote:

...

Can you please elaborate how you manage the regular updates, especially kernel, udev, glibc etc. Do you hold back the upgrades to packages which require a restart?

This is exactly how I handle kernel updates. Afaik glibc and udev updates don't require reboot.

gt pointed here a good point who honestly refrains me a litle bit from using Arch, even if I feel comfortable with this distro and its community.

I have a once-a-month scheduled reboot to take care of kernel upgrades. I hold back linux and udev, because they tend to rely on each other. ArchLinux does take quite a bit of time to keep up-to-date, but in my opinion the inconvenience is *far* outweighed by the the simplicity of configuration, building & customising packages, feeling of being in control, etc... Paul

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 04:31:49PM +0200, Arno Gaboury wrote:

On 06/19/2012 04:20 PM, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:

...

On 06/19/2012 04:14 PM, gt wrote:

...

Can you please elaborate how you manage the regular updates, especially kernel, udev, glibc etc. Do you hold back the upgrades to packages which require a restart?

This is exactly how I handle kernel updates. Afaik glibc and udev updates don't require reboot.

gt pointed here a good point who honestly refrains me a litle bit from using Arch, even if I feel comfortable with this distro and its community.

No need, really. You have multiple ways to deal with the rolling release model, depending on your requirements regarding change management. For example: * If you don't care about occasional, short downtime: Handle it like a desktop, keep it current, reboot regularly with new kernel. This *may* cause additional problems every now and then, though, and I wouldn't recommend this unless you REALLY don't care about occasional downtime. ;) If you're setting up VMs anyway, this may be the way to go nevertheless, as you can quickly swap and test VMs before going live. * Use a kernel-lts package. This reduces your need for reboots considerably already. * If you're friend of the "stable repo" approach as in debianesque systems.. well.. create one! I'm doing this with great success so far. With a bit of shell trickery you can stuff all packages of a running system into your own repository, and you dub this stable. You may then choose to cherrypick and test new package versions from core/extra/community, or roll your own if there's a specific patch you'd want to have integrated, but not bump the version altogether for whatever reason. The latter is actually required much less often than I thought initially, as incompatible version upgrades are relatively rare in the first place. To sum it up, with Arch you can basically choose your own approach to stabilizing your package sources. On the other hand, you will have to manage it yourself, too, unless you find a "public" stable repository which you trust to do the job well. Best regards, Dennis -- "Den Rechtsstaat macht aus, dass Unschuldige wieder frei kommen." Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble, Bundesinnenminister (14.10.08, TAZ-Interview) 0D21BE6C - F3DC D064 BB88 5162 56BE 730F 5471 3881 0D21 BE6C

On 2012-06-19, Arno Gaboury wrote:

Is there any provider offering Arch distro, as it seems it is hard, near impossible, to find one.

Linode https://www.linode.com/ is a VPS with Arch for USD 20/month. Easy to setup, and if you screw up something while tinkering, you can just nuke the image and install another one.

I have a Linode server running Arch. I did a little tinkering to enable kernel updates, but that's about it. I keep things up to date through Pacman and haven't had many problems at all. I've run php, ruby on rails, apache, nginx, mysql, postgresql, redis, node.js, and a number of server-side applications without a hitch. I have found Arch a little easier to configure (especially with newer technologies/versions of a package) than other Linux distros. Culley On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 16:28 +0300, Alper Kanat wrote:

We bought our VPS' from Hetzner btw. Hetzner is a German ISP which provides cheap (starts from 7€ just look at the price page) but rock solid servers. They don't officially support Arch Linux but the installation is trivial.

--- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

On Jun 19, 2012 9:42 AM, "Szu-Han Chen" wrote:

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 07:43:06AM -0500, Culley Smith wrote:

...

I have a Linode server running Arch. I did a little tinkering to enable kernel updates, but that's about it. I keep things up to date through Pacman and haven't had many problems at all. I've run php, ruby on rails, apache, nginx, mysql, postgresql, redis, node.js, and a number of server-side applications without a hitch. I have found Arch a little easier to configure (especially with newer technologies/versions of a package) than other Linux distros.

Culley

On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 16:28 +0300, Alper Kanat wrote:

...

We bought our VPS' from Hetzner btw. Hetzner is a German ISP which

...

...

cheap (starts from 7€ just look at the price page) but rock solid servers. They don't officially support Arch Linux but the installation is

provides trivial.

...

...

--- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

I'm not sure if these responses are really helping OP. He asked about running Arch on a web server, not a thread of web hosting company ads.

-- --Szu-Han Chen (sjchen.com) O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org

There are always more eyes than just the OP

On 06/19/2012 03:48 PM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto wrote:

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Szu-Han Chen wrote:

...

I'm not sure if these responses are really helping OP. He asked about running Arch on a web server, not a thread of web hosting company ads. I'm not sure you really read the whole thread, but the OP explicitly asked for input on host providers supporting Arch :)

You are right Denis, I asked too for providers supporting Arch, as it seems they are not so common. Please, there is no need to start a flame!! And TY for all these advises.

On 06/19/2012 03:42 PM, Szu-Han Chen wrote:

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 07:43:06AM -0500, Culley Smith wrote:

...

I have a Linode server running Arch. I did a little tinkering to enable kernel updates, but that's about it. I keep things up to date through Pacman and haven't had many problems at all. I've run php, ruby on rails, apache, nginx, mysql, postgresql, redis, node.js, and a number of server-side applications without a hitch. I have found Arch a little easier to configure (especially with newer technologies/versions of a package) than other Linux distros.

Culley

On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 16:28 +0300, Alper Kanat wrote:

...

We bought our VPS' from Hetzner btw. Hetzner is a German ISP which provides cheap (starts from 7€ just look at the price page) but rock solid servers. They don't officially support Arch Linux but the installation is trivial.

--- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? I'm not sure if these responses are really helping OP.*He asked about running Arch on a web server*, not a thread of web hosting company ads.

Was right now just thinking same. That's good to get some nice VPS provider names,but I am not sure to know more if I shall stay with Arch or go debian! Please bear in mind I am not a tech pro, and even if I want to build the web server on my own coz tech is a hobby, I am looking for something not too difficult to deal with configuration, updates, and security.

On Jun 19, 2012 9:29 AM, "Alper Kanat" wrote:

We bought our VPS' from Hetzner btw. Hetzner is a German ISP which

provides

cheap (starts from 7€ just look at the price page) but rock solid servers. They don't officially support Arch Linux but the installation is trivial.

--- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

I use VPS-Forge which is also cheap - $8 a month starting. They support Arch (and are very friendly) Calvin

Hi guys, may be you'll find ArchServer an interesting project, you'll find more here: www.archserver.org. The idea behind this project is to create a rock-solid, server-oriented Arch flavor ready for mass deployment with all the pros we love about Arch -easy to maintain, lightweight, ultra-stable, a joy to use, you know, The Arch Way- plus a well tested repositories to ensure no unexpected surprises (!) and the least manual intervention possible while remaining %100 Arch-compatible. While the project have been around for quite some time, the lack of people involved together with real-life matters of it's lead devs and mantainers made Arch Server slide into an induced sleep for some time... until now. In my last email exchange with Daniel (aka ShadowBranch, current AS maintainer), about a month ago, he made clear it's matter of time until the project is up and fully running again - undoubtedly he is not having the necessary spare time to setup everything again and relaunch the project. So if you think ArchServer have any worthiness or is something interesting -personally I would _love_ to have a specific server-flavor of Arch- head on to the ML section and subscribe yourselves so you don't miss the grand reopening. P.S.: I know this may sound like a cheap NTM[0]/sell speach but it's not! I'm just a fan of the idea of having a server edition of AL ready to deploy and forgot about it because Arch rocks and I don't really want to work with any other distros that isn't Arch-centric; also I find inefficient to have to learn the ways of other distros -which I don't like how they do things- in order to work with a production server. For now I set up my Arch Linux server boxes by hand as the next archer does, but I'm sure it would be plain awesome to have an Arch branch specifically fitted for the server role, it could save me countless hours on deployment, management, testing, servicing, etc., and I'm sure it can do the same for all the rest of the archers :) [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_marketing Cheers!

idea of having a server edition of AL ready to deploy and forgot about it because Arch rocks

Have you considered flavours like mail, web. A recent thread showed atleast one person who probably would have liked an out of the box web arch? -- ________________________________________________________ Why not do something good every day and install BOINC. ________________________________________________________

...

Have you considered flavours like mail, web.

A recent thread showed atleast one person who probably would have liked an out of the box web arch?

Sorry Kevin, I don't follow you.

probably because it's completely off the radar and probably projects in themselves especially as your just getting back up and running. This thread (feeling sheepish) about debian or arch being best for a webserver got me thinking you could have an install package or iso for different server types such as a web server version or mail server version. Then the answer on this thread could be because arch has a fully functional and well setup (perhaps chrooted) web server out of the box.