I am interested. Of course I am. I want to find out if it really is a kernel
or mobo problem. Unless I can prove that my mobo is not working right I have
no chance of giving it back. If you can help me trace the exact problem I
would be gratefull. I would love to bring back the motherboard to the shop
and buy one with no problem (probably a A7N8X), but unless I can prove it is
not working I have no chance. Unfortunatelly I know no diagnostics program
which could help me prove that. So please help me trace the problem to the
origin. I am not that much of an expert, but would love to see my system
work. I am a programmer myself, but not that much into hardware level
programming and linux is my newfound love (been fiddling with it for about 2
years now), but never had to go this deep to trace a problem.
So please help.
Best regards,
Adrian
----- Original Message -----
From: "civileme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: [expert] new memory 512MB module (total 1024MB) and linux won't
boot and also installer doesn't work anymore
> On Saturday 08 March 2003 04:07 am, Adrian Golumbovici wrote:
> > Ummm... But then again. I can start X and run linux just fine after I
boot
> > without that parameter. Does that mean the mapping of the framebuffer is
> > back to normal after boot?!? I would love to shove this motherboard up
the
> > manufacturers ... behind. :) But how come other OS (I hate to even
> > pronounce M$ product names :) ) have no prob with it?
> >
> > Before I am going with my mobo back to the store where I bought it
(though
> > I have it since 4 months and doubt they would accept a refund just based
on
> > "linux doesn't work with it with 1GB of ram...), I was wondering if
there
> > is anything else I could try to find out more about where it chokes so I
> > can be 100% sure it is the mobo's fault and not the fault of linux? And
> > BTW, I picked a random graphics mode at boot (vga=ask and selected 6 -
> > 80x60) and it worked...
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Adrian
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "civileme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 1:52 PM
> > Subject: Re: [expert] new memory 512MB module (total 1024MB) and linux
> > won't boot and also installer doesn't work anymore
> >
> > > On Saturday 08 March 2003 03:03 am, Adrian Golumbovici wrote:
> > > > I left it for a couple of minutes, but with no reaction and those
> > > > lights
> >
> > on
> >
> > > > keyboard lighting (which normally don't light) I figured it crashed.
> > > > Anyway, if that mode is not supported by my video card, why does
that
> > > > setting work with 512MB but it freezes as long as it has 1024MB
RAM?!?
>
>
> > > That happens because your BIOS is mapping video framebuffer across
your
> > > memory.... In other words the BIOS is misreporting the bridge
mappings.
> > >
> > > Civileme
>
> Well, try two 1024Mb memory sticks and I bet you will see more than just
the
> framebuffer problem.
>
> Windows does not use all of memory right away while linux does ("unused
memory
> is wasted memory") so I would imagine that IF windows trusts the BIOS for
> memory and peripheral maps that you would encounter crashing when your
memory
> use of memory is similar to that of linux.
>
> This behavior is almost identical to a performance encountered in 2001
with
> 8.0 (2.4 kernel) on a Dell notebook when mem was upgraded from 128M to
256M.
> As soon as mem was upgraded past 192M, a "Bad Bridge Mapping" was
> encountered, and using the enterprise kernel resulted in an ACPI error
> reported on top of that. Windoze was oblivious to the problem entirely (I
> don't think it used the BIOS report of mapping of PCI Bridge, but it may
> never have used enough memory). Kernel 2.2, which is not built to trust
the
> BIOS, worked fine even at full 512M.
>
> remember, the video framebuffer is independent of the normal X driver (and
I
> am somewhat curious about the video card), and is supposed to use some
> memory. I find it strange that the normal kernel which uses about 892 or
> 896M of memory ran at 800 but not at 900... If you have interest, it
might
> be instructive to find where exactly one encounters the kernel panic in
terms
> of memory usage.
>
> Civileme
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
> Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
>
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
