Hello,
I have a problem that is driving me crazy. I have setup a micro cluster
with different programs that can interact with each other, the setup is as
follows:
--bond0 (eth1)-->desktop1 (IP:10.1.1.200)
|
bond0 (eth2)
v
desktop2 (IP:10.1.1.190)
bond0 consist of eth1 and eth2 connec
bridge_stp off
bridge_fd 0
bridge_maxwait 0
Is it possible to bridge with a third NIC (eth3)? I'm just asking because i
had planned to connect a third computer to the server.
thanks,
Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi wrote:
> I have a problem that is driving me crazy. I have setup a micro clust
>
> Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi wrote:
>
> Bob Proulx wrote:
>
> > Is there some reason that you are choosing not to use a switch that
>
> > you haven't told us about?
>
>
>
> I have no reason other than I'm trying different network configuration
Hello,
Before anybody starts arguing that I don't have 64-bit, this is uname -r
and uname -m:
root@n03:~# uname -r
2.6.32-3-amd64
root@n03:~# uname -m
x86_64
As the subject suggest I have a box that does not utilize the available RAM
installed. I noticed that only 3.6gb RAM was recognized when I
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmas...@lists.debian.org
> Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120509123221.5fbba...@celsius.lan
>
>
--
De venligste hilsner/I am, yours most sincerely
Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi
;
>
--
De venligste hilsner/I am, yours most sincerely
Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Gary Dale wrote:
> On 09/05/12 08:09 AM, Johann Spies wrote:
>
>> Hallo Seyyed,
>>
>>
>> Before anybody starts arguing that I don't have 64-bit, this is uname -r
>>> and
>>> uname -m:
>>> root@n03:~# uname -r
>>> 2.6.32-3-amd64
>>> root@n03:~# uname -m
>>> x86_64
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 09:47 -0400, Gary Dale wrote:
> > Ubuntu is based on Debian and may have the same bug(s). CentOS would
> > be a good test since it comes from an entirely different chain.
>
> A 32-bit Debian with a PAE kernel might also gi
An update:
I tried CentOS 6.1 (the only one i had at hand) and it gave the exact same
result as Debian.
I have in the meantime tried to use other RAM modules, and unfortunately
they also did not give more than 3.5gb. Considering that i pulled the ram
from a 24/7 stable system i assume that it is
>
> On Wed, 09 May 2012 17:35:51 -0500, Stan wrote in message
> <4faaf147.7010...@hardwarefreak.com>:
> > On 5/9/2012 11:43 AM, Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi wrote:
> > > An update:
> > >
> > > I tried CentOS 6.1 (the only one i had at hand) a
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 5/10/2012 12:47 AM, Mohtadin Hashemi wrote:
> > Sorry for double and top post. Pushed the wrong button.
> >
> > I was saying that the RAM are all Mushkin 996770, i was also going to
> buy a SuperMicro board as i have very good experience w
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 10:49 +0200, Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi wrote:
>
> PS. I have unsubscribed from the main list and am only getting the
> digest, so everyone: When replying please CC to my mail also,
> otherwise You will have to wait till i get Your answer/question via
On Thu, 10 May 2012, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> If this doesn't fix the issue, and memtest and other utils can see all
> 64GB just fine, then I'd say you're dealing with a BIOS bug.
The very top of /var/log/dmesg has the kernel debug output about the memory
map. It might well tell us very quick
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 4:30 AM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2012, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> > On 5/13/2012 7:02 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > On Fri, 11 May 2012, Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi wrote:
> > >> On 5/10/2012 1:16 PM, Stan H
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 5/15/2012 12:26 PM, Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi wrote:
> > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 4:30 AM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <
> h...@debian.org
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 14 May 2012, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 21:26 +0200, Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Stan Hoeppner
> wrote:
> On 5/15/2012 12:26 PM, Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi wrote:
> > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 4:30 AM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
>
On Tue, 2012-05-29 at 15:48 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 5/29/2012 4:08 PM, Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 21:26 +0200, Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Stan Hoeppner
> >> wrote:
> >> On
On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 20:18 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 5/30/2012 8:55 AM, Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-05-29 at 15:48 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> >> On 5/29/2012 4:08 PM, Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 21:26
Summary:
Debian Squeeze 64-bit was not able to use more than 3.6GB RAM. Linux
showed the problem as MTRR not covering all available RAM.
MTRR problems can be fixed by kernel if MTRR repair is enabled, e.g. in
the 3.2 kernel. However, the using the backported 3.2 kernel resulted in
kernel panic.
19 matches
Mail list logo
