we are running SL5.6 x86_64 (2.6.18-238.9.1) on a 96GB machine without issues.
does the bios report 48GB of ram when the OS sees 32? (we had an other machine with bad ram/memcontroller that reported varying amounts of ram after every reboot) and how much ram is seen by dmidecode? stijn > On Thursday, June 09, 2011 07:22:56 PM you wrote: > > That's a significant chunk of RAM for such an old codebase. Is there > > any reason not to simply update to SL 6.0 and avoid the support > > problems? > > What are you talking about, being large for an old codebase? On x86_64 > upstream has supported far more than 48GB since version 3 days (128GB to be > exact, according to http://www.redhat.com/rhel/compare/ ). > > While I don't have a machine with more than 32GB of RAM currently, I wouldn't > have any problem using CentOS or SL 5.6 (or either SLC or SLF) on x86_64 with > that much RAM. The EL5.6 kernel isn't aged yet, not by a long shot. > > SLC5 to SLC6 is not an update, it is a major upgrade. There may be very > significant reasons to not upgrade for the OP. > > In any case, this doesn't answer the OP's question of why SLC5.6 doesn't see > the same thing as upstream EL5.6 but being built from the same source. I > would ask the OP to see what both SL (non-C) and CentOS 5.6 say about the > machine and see if either see things like SLC or like upstream. It should be > a pretty simple and quick test, especially if the OP uses the LiveCD to do it > (which should work ok, assuming all the tools are there). -- http://hasthelhcdestroyedtheearth.com/
