Srihari Vijayaraghavan wrote: > I had a significant breakthrough: when I removed two out of four 1 GB modules > (just a stab in the dark to see if the system stability problem I reported to > LKML ( http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=117813911431765&w=2 ; a few sample > oops messages attached for reference) goes away, I stuck a gold mine: now the > SATA controller detects both the drives :-)). > > So, it'd seem the SATA controller wouldn't work fine when one has a lot of RAM > on this board. The manual/manufacture's website claim it supports 8 GB of DDR2 > 800, while I only have 4, yet there are a few severe problems already: like > this SATA drive detection problem & the system instability. > > I now got things working very reliably (even without pci=nomsi) with 2 GB of > RAM (3 times longer kernel compile torture time with 2 GB, without kernel > issues, with both pairs of RAM individually, compared with all of 4 GB where > the system is plagued with instability). I intent to check how far below 4095M > I could use mem= parameter with, without destablising the system, assuming if > at all mem= parameters going to help. > > For the record, here's the complete dmesg of the current working system as an > attachment (dmesg-2.6.21.1-2gigs): > > Thank you for your insight into the problem. If there are any tricks involved > in making use of all 4 GB of RAM with SATA drives & with system stability, > I'll be very happy to learn them :-)).
It might be that you just have a bad ram module. Does the machine work properly if you exchange the installed two modules with the other two? memtet86 time, I guess. -- tejun - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
