On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 09:06:02PM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
>
> Pentium II 350 or thereabouts.
>
> Red Hat insists on assorted GUI tools for configuring stuff. To my
> mind, if you're not going to use them, there's not a lot of point to RHL
> over anything else.
>
> Mine was not a default in
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 19:35:39 +0200
> From: Tzafrir Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Linux on 390 Port <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: RHEL3 requires 256MB to be supported?
>
> On Fri,
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Rob van der Heij wrote:
> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:10:31 +0100
> From: Rob van der Heij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Linux on 390 Port <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: RHEL3 requires 256MB to be supported?
>
> On
t; > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: RHEL3 requires 256MB to be supported?
> >
> > I don't think any such assumptions were made. Certainly not by me, which is
> > why I said "or as little virtual storage."
> >
> > I have RHEL3 Be
On Gwe, 2003-10-31 at 11:10, Rob van der Heij wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-10-31 at 11:06, Rob van der Heij wrote:
>
> > We do know that the installer needs a minimum amount of memory because
>
> The idea of pulling RAM chips out of the PC after you install would
> probably be very alien to Intel Linux pe
I can't comment about the 256MB limit, I didn't (and wouldn't have) put
it in.
But my tests showed that it is no problem to run a system with 60Mb or
less (with plenty of swap on VDISK) and even compile a kernel on it.
And yes, graphical installs were very painful in the past, I did quite a few
of
l Message-
From: Rob van der Heij [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 5:06 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RHEL3 requires 256MB to be supported?
On Fri, 2003-10-31 at 02:15, Vic Cross wrote:
> > My point was that since Red Hat requires 256MB to be supported, you n
On Fri, 2003-10-31 at 04:06, Rob van der Heij wrote:
> PS The box of Red Hat 7 for Intel says 32MB, but that's probably text
> and no GUI.
SuSE 9.0 for x86 claims 64MB minimum for graphical install, 128MB
recommended. I installed Debian 3.0 on a 16MB Intel system just fine,
and I can do that on L
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, John Summerfield wrote:
> In practice, with new hardware, 256 Mbytes is the minimum I'd reommend -
> why would you stuff arround with memory configurations to yield
> something between?
This is my point. They can get away with that reasoning for discrete
servers, but can't a
On Fri, 2003-10-31 at 11:06, Rob van der Heij wrote:
> We do know that the installer needs a minimum amount of memory because
The idea of pulling RAM chips out of the PC after you install would
probably be very alien to Intel Linux people. So in that case the
installer requirements are the minimu
On Fri, 2003-10-31 at 02:15, Vic Cross wrote:
> > My point was that since Red Hat requires 256MB to be supported, you need to
> > be able to reproduce any sort of problem while running in that
> > configuration.
>
> You don't question the 256MB requirement? To me, this is troubling.
It also trou
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Post, Mark K wrote:
> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 16:09:34 -0500
> From: "Post, Mark K" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Linux on 390 Port <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: RHEL3 requires 256MB to be supported?
>
&
NSTM [1]...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Post, Mark K wrote:
> My point was that since Red Hat requires 256MB to be supported, you need to
> be able to reproduce any sort of problem while running in that
> configuration.
You don't question the 256MB requirement? To me, this is troubling. Red
Hat knows
Lots of things. Lots.
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Rob van der Heij [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 4:46 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RHEL3 requires 256MB to be supported?
-snip-
My guess is that this check was left over from something else
On Thu, 2003-10-30 at 22:09, Post, Mark K wrote:
> I don't think any such assumptions were made. Certainly not by me, which is
> why I said "or as little virtual storage."
So if we agree that the 256MB probably is an arbitrary value, then we
probably both feel that running a Linux machine with le
ust the hypothetical I proposed. Red Hat
would be within their rights to ask you to reproduce the problem while
running in an officially supported configuration.
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Rob van der Heij [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 10:07 AM
To: [EMA
On Wed, 2003-10-29 at 01:56, Mark Post wrote:
> You can run with as much or as little virtual storage defined to your guest as
> you like. If performance stinks, and you want to report it to Red Hat as
> problem, you'll need to set that value to at least 256MB and reproduce the
> problem before t
On Tuesday 28 October 2003 14:44, you wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> As is considered good practice, I've been trying to use VDISK swap with the
> DASD diagnose driver when possible. I was surprised to see the following
> message when IPLing RHEL3
>
>WARNING: Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS release 3 (Taroo
Hi list,
As is considered good practice, I've been trying to use VDISK swap with the
DASD diagnose driver when possible. I was surprised to see the following
message when IPLing RHEL3
WARNING: Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS release 3 (Taroon) requires at
least 256MB
RAM to run as a supporte
19 matches
Mail list logo
