Go Back   nV News Forums > Linux Support Forums > NVIDIA Linux

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-12-08, 03:55 PM   #1
westphalia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3
Default Which is the real issue? fc9 or 169.07?

I'm running Fedora rawhide (aka fc9) with a NVIDIA 8800 GTS. I was able to run Xorg-1.3.0 with driver 100.14.19 (worked but not speedy) but can't run Xorg-1.4.99 w/ driver 169.07. So, which is the real issue? the glx, xorg-1.4.99 or a bad 169.07?

Fatal parts of Xorg.0.log:

(II) Loading /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/extensions//libglx.so
(II) Module glx: vendor="NVIDIA Corporation"
compiled for 4.0.2, module version = 1.0.0
Module class: X.Org Server Extension
ABI class: X.Org Server Extension, version 0.1
(EE) module ABI major version (0) doesn't match the server's version (1)
(II) UnloadModule: "glx"
(II) Unloading /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/extensions//libglx.so
(EE) Failed to load module "glx" (module requirement mismatch, 0)

(II) Loading /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/drivers//nvidia_drv.so
dlopen: /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/drivers//nvidia_drv.so: undefined symbol: miZeroLineScreenIndex
(EE) Failed to load /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/drivers//nvidia_drv.so
(II) UnloadModule: "nvidia"
(EE) Failed to load module "nvidia" (loader failed, 7)

I can get X up with the "nv" driver but it is SLOW.
Attached Files
File Type: gz nvidia-bug-report.log.gz (25.9 KB, 513 views)
westphalia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-08, 04:29 PM   #2
felix-bellaby
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 16
Default Re: Which is the real issue? fc9 or 169.07?

The 1.4+ version of the X server in Fedora rawhide uses a different binary interface (ABI) from the 1.3 X server in Fedora 8. This new ABI is not compatible with the current or previous nvidia binary drivers.

You will have to revert your X server back to the version in Fedora 8 in order to use the nvidia drivers. Hopefully, nvidia and Fedora will get back in sync before Fedora 9 is released.

You can disable the ABI checks built into the nvidia drivers by running the X server with the -ignoreABI flag. This may get the rawhide X server to start with the nvidia drivers, but it is likely to crash fairly quickly when an incompatible call is made.
felix-bellaby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-08, 01:19 AM   #3
vherva
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 25
Default FC9 / X.org ABI 1.4 and 169.09?

Quote:
Originally Posted by felix-bellaby
You can disable the ABI checks built into the nvidia drivers by running the X server with the -ignoreABI flag. This may get the rawhide X server to start with the nvidia drivers, but it is likely to crash fairly quickly when an incompatible call is made.
Is the situation still the same with 169.09?
vherva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-08, 07:39 PM   #4
thlarsen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3
Default Re: Which is the real issue? fc9 or 169.07?

# modinfo nvidia
filename: /lib/modules/2.6.25-0.121.rc5.git4.fc9/kernel/drivers/video/nvidia.ko
license: NVIDIA
alias: char-major-195-*
alias: pci:v000010DEd*sv*sd*bc03sc02i00*
alias: pci:v000010DEd*sv*sd*bc03sc00i00*
depends: i2c-core
vermagic: 2.6.25-0.121.rc5.git4.fc9 SMP mod_unload

But when I start X I get

(II) Loading extension XFree86-DRI
(II) LoadModule: "nvidia"

(II) Loading /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/drivers//nvidia_drv.so
dlopen: /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/drivers//nvidia_drv.so: undefined symbol: miZeroLineScreenIndex
(EE) Failed to load /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/drivers//nvidia_drv.so
(II) UnloadModule: "nvidia"
(EE) Failed to load module "nvidia" (loader failed, 7)

Suggestions ?
thlarsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-08, 10:37 PM   #5
AaronP
NVIDIA Corporation
 
AaronP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,487
Default Re: Which is the real issue? fc9 or 169.07?

The driver does not support the 1.5 prerelease build of the X server shipped by Fedora 9 alpha. The driver ABI changed enough that -ignoreABI won't help. The 1.5 series of X servers will be supported in a future driver release after the ABI has been finalized.
AaronP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-08, 03:28 AM   #6
thlarsen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3
Default Re: Which is the real issue? fc9 or 169.07?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronP
The driver does not support the 1.5 prerelease build of the X server shipped by Fedora 9 alpha. The driver ABI changed enough that -ignoreABI won't help. The 1.5 series of X servers will be supported in a future driver release after the ABI has been finalized.
Do you have a timeframe? Reason to choose Fedora 9 for development is latest libs and making code ready for future RHEL.

Btw, could I do 4 x 2560x1600 with 2 NVidia SLI ? Do not need ultimate performance, just large realestate + adequate 3D.

Thx.
thlarsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-08, 03:30 AM   #7
thlarsen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3
Default Re: Which is the real issue? fc9 or 169.07?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronP
The driver does not support the 1.5 prerelease build of the X server shipped by Fedora 9 alpha. The driver ABI changed enough that -ignoreABI won't help. The 1.5 series of X servers will be supported in a future driver release after the ABI has been finalized.
Btw, the above was 171.06.
thlarsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-08, 04:46 AM   #8
gbil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 272
Default Re: Which is the real issue? fc9 or 169.07?

I upgraded to rawhide 2 days ago as I always do about a month before the official release.

Everything went smoothly except of course this issue with the Xorg. In my opinion choosing to go with a trunk/alpha version of a subsystem as crucial as Xorg is just unacceptable and stupid. It is not even sure if xorg 1.5 will be released before FC9 but they chose to include it instead of 1.4.1.

My solution: install the xorg 1.3 from FC8 together with the needed drivers and work until the people in fedora learn to make rational decisions.
gbil is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 03-22-08, 05:28 AM   #9
Dragoran
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 711
Default Re: Which is the real issue? fc9 or 169.07?

Quote:
Originally Posted by gbil
I upgraded to rawhide 2 days ago as I always do about a month before the official release.

Everything went smoothly except of course this issue with the Xorg. In my opinion choosing to go with a trunk/alpha version of a subsystem as crucial as Xorg is just unacceptable and stupid. It is not even sure if xorg 1.5 will be released before FC9 but they chose to include it instead of 1.4.1.
The fedora xorg maintainer (Adam Jackson) is the xorg release manager, so I am sure he knows what he is doing (he ajusted the upstream xorg release schedule to fit with fedora's)
Dragoran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-08, 05:40 AM   #10
gbil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 272
Default Re: Which is the real issue? fc9 or 169.07?

I just found this http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...item&px=NjM2MA about what you wrote.

I didn't know that to be honest but then again I'm not sure how many problems speeding up the release of Xorg will cause. Hopefully none but.... Not a strategy I would follow.
gbil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-08, 02:36 PM   #11
gbil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 272
Default Re: Which is the real issue? fc9 or 169.07?

After all F9 will ship with a development version of Xorg 1.5 since this will take even more to be released.

Under these circumstances could NVidia reconsider the release of a (beta) driver for the development version of Xorg 1.5 (1.4.x) that will offer at least 3D acceleration ?

Thanks
gbil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-08, 08:39 PM   #12
Morfin
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1
Default Re: Which is the real issue? fc9 or 169.07?

I using prerelease of Fedora 9(update it today) with Xorg 1.4.99(RC1 of 1.5.0). Can you write drivers for this version of Xorg and than change only GLX that using video driver ABI.
P.S Now i using default driver that works very slow
P.P.S parameter -ignoreABI doesn't works, and
if i write:
Code:
Disable "glx"
in Module section of xorg.conf Xorg crashes
Morfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

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 On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NVIDIA Responds to Reports of Kepler V-Sync Stuttering Issue Rieper NVIDIA GeForce 600 Series 13 03-03-13 10:56 PM
Diablo 3 accounts hacked, items stolen, real money auction house due next week News Archived News Items 0 05-22-12 07:10 AM
Intel's Ivy Bridge Core i7 3770K Overheating Issue Detailed News Archived News Items 0 05-16-12 10:40 AM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.