Re: Only 3.6gb of 64gb RAM recognized by 64bit squeeze

2012-05-31 Thread Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi
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 +0200, Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi wrote

SOLVED: Only 3.6gb of 64gb RAM recognized by 64bit squeeze

2012-05-31 Thread Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi
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.

Re: Only 3.6gb of 64gb RAM recognized by 64bit squeeze

2012-05-30 Thread Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi
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 s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote: On 5/15/2012 12:26 PM, Seyyed

Re: Only 3.6gb of 64gb RAM recognized by 64bit squeeze

2012-05-29 Thread Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi
On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 21:26 +0200, Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi wrote: On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com 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

Re: Only 3.6gb of 64gb RAM recognized by 64bit squeeze

2012-05-15 Thread Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi
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 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 Hoeppner wrote

Re: Only 3.6gb of 64gb RAM recognized by 64bit squeeze

2012-05-15 Thread Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.comwrote: 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 5/13/2012 7:02 PM

Re: Re: Only 3.6gb of 64gb RAM recognized by 64bit squeeze

2012-05-11 Thread Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi
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 the digest

Re: Re: Only 3.6gb of 64gb RAM recognized by 64bit squeeze

2012-05-11 Thread Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi
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

Re: Only 3.6gb of 64gb RAM recognized by 64bit squeeze

2012-05-10 Thread Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi
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) and it gave the exact same result as Debian. I have in the meantime

Re: Only 3.6gb of 64gb RAM recognized by 64bit squeeze

2012-05-10 Thread Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.comwrote: 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

Only 3.6gb of 64gb RAM recognized by 64bit squeeze

2012-05-09 Thread Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi
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

Re: Only 3.6gb of 64gb RAM recognized by 64bit squeeze

2012-05-09 Thread Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi
sincerely Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi

Re: Only 3.6gb of 64gb RAM recognized by 64bit squeeze

2012-05-09 Thread Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi
/I am, yours most sincerely Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi

Re: Only 3.6gb of 64gb RAM recognized by 64bit squeeze

2012-05-09 Thread Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Gary Dale garyd...@rogers.com 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 I have

Re: Only 3.6gb of 64gb RAM recognized by 64bit squeeze

2012-05-09 Thread Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Ralf Mardorf ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.netwrote: 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

Re: Only 3.6gb of 64gb RAM recognized by 64bit squeeze

2012-05-09 Thread Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi
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

Re: Re: Re: Bonded network: No route to host between slaves

2012-04-10 Thread Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi
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 configurations to learn how to do different things. I already have established

Bonded network: No route to host between slaves

2012-04-09 Thread Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi
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: server--bond0 (eth1)--desktop1 (IP:10.1.1.200) | bond0 (eth2) v desktop2 (IP:10.1.1.190) bond0 consist of eth1 and eth2

Re: Re: Bonded network: No route to host between slaves

2012-04-09 Thread Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi
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 cluster with different programs that can