Hi all,
On 05 Jul 2001 13:45:23 -0700, Peter A. Castro wrote:
> Each OS allocates the physical memory differently. MS-Windows typically
> allocates physical memory sequentually. Linux tends to uses both ends of
> the memory pool. For a proper test, you need to load enough programs so
> that al
On 4 Jul 2001, Ronald Bultje wrote:
> Hi,
Hi back at you :-)
> you might remember an e-mail from me (two weeks ago) with my problems
> where linux would not boot up or be highly instable on a machine with
> 256 MB RAM, while it was 100% stable with 128 MB RAM. Basically, I still
> have this pro
Hmm,
I have no problems either.
Asus KT7 KT133 Chipset
root@station2-lnx:~# uname -a
Linux station2-lnx 2.4.6 #10 Thu Jul 5 11:08:39 CDT 2001 i686 unknown
root@station2-lnx:~# free
total used free sharedbuffers cached
Mem:512944 509888 3056
> Can someone please
> point out to me
> that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with
> more than 128
> MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems?
> And can that same person PLEASE point out to me why 2.4.x is
> crashing on
> me (or help me to find out...)?
%uname -a
> "Ragnar" == Ragnar Hojland Espinosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ragnar> And here's a counter claim: At home have 128 + 64, both of
Ragnar> different speeds and brands. Of course, to run properly you
Ragnar> have to force the pc100 to run at 66, but other than that
Ragnar> they're happy
Ronald Bultje wrote:
> No, it's the installation so I'm booting from the CD (mdk-8/RH-7.1
> installation CDs).
Your cd might be corrupted. If you are using the same cd for both machines, try
changing it.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a
Ronald Bultje wrote:
>
> On 04 Jul 2001 17:29:12 -0400, Chris Siebenmann wrote:
> > You write:
> > | I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in
> > | my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me
> > | that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x
On 05 Jul 2001 01:40:47 -0700, Reza Roboubi wrote:
> You have dual boot machines(right?) Which boot loader are you using to boot
> linux? Could this be related to the boot loader messing up the initial state
> of the machine?
No, it's the installation so I'm booting from the CD (mdk-8/RH-7.1
in
> So this leads to the conclusion that the memory is okay, and that
> something else must be the problem Could it still be a failing power
> supply or something? It seems both computers have a 230 W power supply.
> Might be a problem, I guess, I can buy a 400 W thingy if that makes
> sense
Ronald Bultje wrote:
> I ran memtest tonight on all machines
> It gave 0 errors on all of them.
You have dual boot machines(right?) Which boot loader are you using to boot
linux? Could this be related to the boot loader messing up the initial state
of the machine?
-
To unsubscribe fro
>>
>
>I ran memtest tonight on all machines
>It gave 0 errors on all of them.
>
>So this leads to the conclusion that the memory is okay, and that
>something else must be the problem Could it still be a failing power
>supply or something? It seems both computers have a 230 W powe
On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 11:16:43PM -0400, Bill Pringlemeir wrote:
> I also have had problems with a machine that had 128Mb + 64 Mb. I
> discovered the following about 2.4.x. You _should_ have a swap file
> that is double RAM. Mixing different SDRAM types is probably a bad
> thing. So if you up
On 04 Jul 2001 17:29:12 -0400, Chris Siebenmann wrote:
> You write:
> | I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in
> | my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me
> | that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128
>
>> I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY
>> machine in my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone
>> please point out to me
Alan> Can I suggest you change your memory vendor and/or get an
Alan> antistatic wrist strap ?
I also have had problems with a machine th
>
> Nobody has answered a basic concern:
> Why does Win2k work while Linux does not?
The answer could be as simple as the fact that Linux might be trying to
write to the exact memory location that is bad but Win2k has not. It might
also be that he in fact DOES have problems with win2k but is una
Reza Roboubi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nobody has answered a basic concern:
> Why does Win2k work while Linux does not?
I did post a possible answer for this: different OSes excercise the memory
subsystem very differently. This is why a box might run (say) Win95
apparently stably, but not be
Nobody has answered a basic concern:
Why does Win2k work while Linux does not?
We already know that MiciSoft sometimes helps make stupid standards like P&P
ISA cards and then writes drivers for them. Something that is hard to do for
any _sane_ developers who did not help make the stupid "standar
Yes, I have an Athlon 700 on a Asus/K7V motherboard with 256 MB PC 133
RAM. Never had any problem with this configuration. Before that, however,
there was an Pentium 120 with 64 MB RAM. This one used to crash during
kernel-compiles due to an overheated processor. Really funny. Later I got
kernel-p
Ronald Bultje wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> you might remember an e-mail from me (two weeks ago) with my problems
> where linux would not boot up or be highly instable on a machine with
> 256 MB RAM, while it was 100% stable with 128 MB RAM. Basically, I still
> have this problem, so I am running with 128
On 04 Jul 2001 17:06:51 -0300, Alessandro Motter Ren wrote:
>
> Which filesystem are you using on this machine?
> []s.
ext2
--
Ronald
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http
> From: Alessandro Motter Ren [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>
> Which filesystem are you using on this machine?
> []s.
>
ext2fs on the production farm but I also have a pair of machines (SMB P-III
800) using reiserfs on mail spools. That pair of machines is not
particularly busy, thoug
Which filesystem are you using on this machine?
[]s.
-Original Message-
From: George Bonser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 5:06 PM
To: Ronald Bultje; Linux Kernel Mailing List
Subject: RE: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
> I
On 4 Jul 2001, Ronald Bultje wrote:
> Hi,
>
> you might remember an e-mail from me (two weeks ago) with my problems
> where linux would not boot up or be highly instable on a machine with
> 256 MB RAM, while it was 100% stable with 128 MB RAM. Basically, I still
> have this problem, so I am runni
> I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in
> my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me
> that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128
> MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems?
Running 2.4.6-
" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
> > I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in
> > my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please poin
Asus K7V here, 800 MHz Athlon oc to 880 MHz, 256 Mb, occasional XFree86
lockups, otherwise stable with almost any of the v2.4.x series
including -ac variants and the testing kernels. Right now 2.4.6-pre5,
doing fine.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
th
> I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in
> my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me
Can I suggest you change your memory vendor and/or get an antistatic wrist
strap ?
> that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more
Ronald Bultje <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> you might remember an e-mail from me (two weeks ago) with my problems
> where linux would not boot up or be highly instable on a machine with
> 256 MB RAM, while it was 100% stable with 128 MB RAM. Basically, I still
> have this problem, so I am runnin
Ronald Bultje wrote:
> I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in
> my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me
> that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128
> MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability pro
Hi,
you might remember an e-mail from me (two weeks ago) with my problems
where linux would not boot up or be highly instable on a machine with
256 MB RAM, while it was 100% stable with 128 MB RAM. Basically, I still
have this problem, so I am running with 128 MB RAM again.
I've been running Man
30 matches
Mail list logo
