Re: I thought 2.2.x should detect RAM 64
On Tue, 11 Jan, 2000 à 02:12:31PM -0500, Jim B wrote: Actually, shouldn't it be: append=mem=96M Actually you're right :) On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Laurent PICOULEAU wrote: Yes, but it doesn't work!!! I added append mem=96M, and the kernel still sees only 64. 8-/ It should be 'append mem=96M ' (without the '). See man lilo.conf -- ( - Laurent PICOULEAU - ) /~\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] /~\ | \)Linux : mettez un pingouin dans votre ordinateur !(/ | \_|_Seuls ceux qui ne l'utilisent pas en disent du mal. _|_/
I thought 2.2.x should detect RAM 64
2.2.14 only detects 64M out of 96M of my RAM. I thought this was fixed in 2.2.x kernels. Comments? -- Arcady Genkin http://www.thpoon.com 'What good is my pity? Is not the pity the cross upon which he who loves man is nailed?..' (Zarathustra - F. Nietzsche)
Re: I thought 2.2.x should detect RAM 64
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far way, someone said... 2.2.14 only detects 64M out of 96M of my RAM. I thought this was fixed in 2.2.x kernels. Comments? It tends to be fixed, but on some hardware there's nothing the kernel can do human intervention is needed. I think you know what you need in /etc/lilo.conf :) -- -- Phil Brutsche [EMAIL PROTECTED] There are two things that are infinite; Human stupidity and the universe. And I'm not sure about the universe. - Albert Einstein
Re: I thought 2.2.x should detect RAM 64
Phil Brutsche [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far way, someone said... 2.2.14 only detects 64M out of 96M of my RAM. I thought this was fixed in 2.2.x kernels. Comments? It tends to be fixed, but on some hardware there's nothing the kernel can do human intervention is needed. I think you know what you need in /etc/lilo.conf :) Yes, but it doesn't work!!! I added append mem=96M, and the kernel still sees only 64. 8-/ On this very machine 2.2.13 compiled under slink saw my 96M automatically, while this 2.2.14 kernel compiled under potato seems to have problems with that. I used my old config file and did a make oldconfig, so the only change is the compilation environment... Could the new compiler + libraries have to do with this? -- Arcady Genkin http://www.thpoon.com 'What good is my pity? Is not the pity the cross upon which he who loves man is nailed?..' (Zarathustra - F. Nietzsche)
Re: I thought 2.2.x should detect RAM 64
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far way, someone said... Yes, but it doesn't work!!! I added append mem=96M, and the kernel still sees only 64. 8-/ Hrm... On this very machine 2.2.13 compiled under slink saw my 96M automatically, while this 2.2.14 kernel compiled under potato seems to have problems with that. I used my old config file and did a make oldconfig, so the only change is the compilation environment... Could the new compiler + libraries have to do with this? gcc 2.95.2? It's likely. The kernel folks don't want to hear bug reports about kernels built with that. Try building with egcs 1.1.2 or gcc 2.7.2.3. The libraries are doubtful, however. The kernel uses it's own. -- -- Phil Brutsche [EMAIL PROTECTED] There are two things that are infinite; Human stupidity and the universe. And I'm not sure about the universe. - Albert Einstein
Re: I thought 2.2.x should detect RAM 64
On 11/1/2000 Phil Brutsche wrote: gcc 2.95.2? It's likely. The kernel folks don't want to hear bug reports about kernels built with that. Try building with egcs 1.1.2 or gcc 2.7.2.3. that is not true anymore. kernel developers DO want to hear bugs about 2.95 now that 2.2.14 is mostly 2.95 OK... -- Ethan Benson To obtain my PGP key: http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/pgp/
Re: I thought 2.2.x should detect RAM 64
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far way, someone said... On 11/1/2000 Phil Brutsche wrote: gcc 2.95.2? It's likely. The kernel folks don't want to hear bug reports about kernels built with that. Try building with egcs 1.1.2 or gcc 2.7.2.3. that is not true anymore. kernel developers DO want to hear bugs about 2.95 now that 2.2.14 is mostly 2.95 OK... ^^ Keyword mostly. It still wouldn't hurt to check it with egcs 1.1.2 or gcc 2.7.2.3. You never know, this might be a part that's not 2.95.x safe. -- -- Phil Brutsche [EMAIL PROTECTED] There are two things that are infinite; Human stupidity and the universe. And I'm not sure about the universe. - Albert Einstein
Re: I thought 2.2.x should detect RAM 64
On 11/1/2000 Phil Brutsche wrote: Keyword mostly. It still wouldn't hurt to check it with egcs 1.1.2 or gcc 2.7.2.3. You never know, this might be a part that's not 2.95.x safe. yes obviously the way to test for a 2.95 bug is to compile with older compilers and see if the problem persists, but the point is developers are now saying you can use 2.95 (and SHOULD so that remaining problems can be found and fixed). if nobody uses 2.95 then the problems that remain will not get fixed. -- Ethan Benson To obtain my PGP key: http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/pgp/
Re: I thought 2.2.x should detect RAM 64
it is supposed to be but it seems to depend on the bIOS. i have a i440BX Abit BP6, and when i got it, it saw all 256MB of ram, but after a recent bios upgrade the system would only see 64MB unless i added the append= thing in lilo.conf. i was running for 2 days before i even noticed it(i had to type free to see my mem otherwise maybe i'd go another week :) ) odd stuff..this board isnt that great though, i also saw reports of an even more recent bios upgrade for the BP6 that caused problems for the linux kernel so it was yanked from abit's site(it probably caused other problems too) kinda funny since it was released on dec 27, and had a last mintue Y2k update. *doh!* nate On 11 Jan 2000, Arcady Genkin wrote: a.genk 2.2.14 only detects 64M out of 96M of my RAM. I thought this was fixed a.genk in 2.2.x kernels. Comments? a.genk -- a.genk Arcady Genkin http://www.thpoon.com a.genk 'What good is my pity? Is not the pity the cross upon which he who a.genk loves man is nailed?..' (Zarathustra - F. Nietzsche) a.genk a.genk a.genk -- a.genk Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null a.genk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]-- Vice President Network Operations http://www.firetrail.com/ Firetrail Internet Services Limited http://www.aphroland.org/ Everett, WA 425-348-7336http://www.linuxpowered.net/ Powered By:http://comedy.aphroland.org/ Debian 2.1 Linux 2.0.36 SMPhttp://yahoo.aphroland.org/ -[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]-- 12:25am up 144 days, 12:24, 4 users, load average: 0.28, 0.34, 0.32
Re: I thought 2.2.x should detect RAM 64
On 11 Jan 2000, Arcady Genkin wrote: : 2.2.14 only detects 64M out of 96M of my RAM. I thought this was fixed : in 2.2.x kernels. Comments? Do you own a Compaq? -- Nathan Norman MidcoNet 410 South Phillips Avenue Sioux Falls, SD mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.midco.net finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP Key: (0xA33B86E9)
Re: I thought 2.2.x should detect RAM 64
Nathan E Norman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 11 Jan 2000, Arcady Genkin wrote: : 2.2.14 only detects 64M out of 96M of my RAM. I thought this was fixed : in 2.2.x kernels. Comments? Do you own a Compaq? Nope. The mobo is an Abit BX6. The BIOS counts 96M at startup. -- Arcady Genkin http://www.thpoon.com 'What good is my pity? Is not the pity the cross upon which he who loves man is nailed?..' (Zarathustra - F. Nietzsche)
Re: I thought 2.2.x should detect RAM 64
Ethan Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 11/1/2000 Phil Brutsche wrote: Keyword mostly. It still wouldn't hurt to check it with egcs 1.1.2 or gcc 2.7.2.3. You never know, this might be a part that's not 2.95.x safe. yes obviously the way to test for a 2.95 bug is to compile with older compilers and see if the problem persists, but the point is developers are now saying you can use 2.95 (and SHOULD so that remaining problems can be found and fixed). if nobody uses 2.95 then the problems that remain will not get fixed. I recompiled the kernel and all the modules with gcc-2.7.2.3. The problem persists. Any further ideas? -- Arcady Genkin http://www.thpoon.com 'What good is my pity? Is not the pity the cross upon which he who loves man is nailed?..' (Zarathustra - F. Nietzsche)
Re: I thought 2.2.x should detect RAM 64
On Tue, 11 Jan, 2000 à 01:05:29AM -0500, Arcady Genkin wrote: Phil Brutsche [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far way, someone said... 2.2.14 only detects 64M out of 96M of my RAM. I thought this was fixed in 2.2.x kernels. Comments? It tends to be fixed, but on some hardware there's nothing the kernel can do human intervention is needed. I think you know what you need in /etc/lilo.conf :) Yes, but it doesn't work!!! I added append mem=96M, and the kernel still sees only 64. 8-/ It should be 'append mem=96M ' (without the '). See man lilo.conf -- ( - Laurent PICOULEAU - ) /~\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] /~\ | \)Linux : mettez un pingouin dans votre ordinateur !(/ | \_|_Seuls ceux qui ne l'utilisent pas en disent du mal. _|_/
Re: I thought 2.2.x should detect RAM 64
Speaking of Compaqs, is there anyway to free the memory sucked up by the onboard video card? A friend of mine put a new PCI video card into his Compaq, and I noticed that it still was only using 56M, even though the onboard video card was not being used. Sean Nathan E Norman wrote: On 11 Jan 2000, Arcady Genkin wrote: : 2.2.14 only detects 64M out of 96M of my RAM. I thought this was fixed : in 2.2.x kernels. Comments? Do you own a Compaq?
Re: I thought 2.2.x should detect RAM 64
Actually, shouldn't it be: append=mem=96M On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Laurent PICOULEAU wrote: Yes, but it doesn't work!!! I added append mem=96M, and the kernel still sees only 64. 8-/ It should be 'append mem=96M ' (without the '). See man lilo.conf
