Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
Hi all, On 05 Jul 2001 13:45:23 -0700, Peter A. Castro wrote: > Each OS allocates the physical memory differently. MS-Windows typically > allocates physical memory sequentually. Linux tends to uses both ends of > the memory pool. For a proper test, you need to load enough programs so > that all of physical memory will be utilized. Win2k may be "stable" > because you aren't loading enough of the system to touch the second bank > of memory. Please try running several large programs and exercise them > all together for several minutes. You can use the task manager to find > the total memory used on the system. Pheew (this is sarcastic) You're fully correct, after toying a bit on win2k, I crashed it a few times with weird errors and I must say, these blue screens in win2k look a *lot* better than the ones I used to see in win98 ;-). They still don't match that wonderful "kernel panic", though. So, basically, my bios must have loaded the wrong options for my memory which must run above it's limits which causes data corruption... Then, my stupid question, why doesn't memtest86 detect that? Anyway, I'll go look at the bios settings of the computers, look at the CAS/RAS/clock timing settings like two people suggested (thanks :-) ) and hope to be happy and have a stable machine after that. Thanks for this half-solution :-) -- Ronald Bultje - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
Hi all, On 05 Jul 2001 13:45:23 -0700, Peter A. Castro wrote: Each OS allocates the physical memory differently. MS-Windows typically allocates physical memory sequentually. Linux tends to uses both ends of the memory pool. For a proper test, you need to load enough programs so that all of physical memory will be utilized. Win2k may be stable because you aren't loading enough of the system to touch the second bank of memory. Please try running several large programs and exercise them all together for several minutes. You can use the task manager to find the total memory used on the system. Pheew (this is sarcastic) You're fully correct, after toying a bit on win2k, I crashed it a few times with weird errors and I must say, these blue screens in win2k look a *lot* better than the ones I used to see in win98 ;-). They still don't match that wonderful kernel panic, though. So, basically, my bios must have loaded the wrong options for my memory which must run above it's limits which causes data corruption... Then, my stupid question, why doesn't memtest86 detect that? Anyway, I'll go look at the bios settings of the computers, look at the CAS/RAS/clock timing settings like two people suggested (thanks :-) ) and hope to be happy and have a stable machine after that. Thanks for this half-solution :-) -- Ronald Bultje - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
On 4 Jul 2001, Ronald Bultje wrote: > Hi, Hi back at you :-) > you might remember an e-mail from me (two weeks ago) with my problems > where linux would not boot up or be highly instable on a machine with > 256 MB RAM, while it was 100% stable with 128 MB RAM. Basically, I still > have this problem, so I am running with 128 MB RAM again. This can mean (but is not limited to) that the second memory module is bad, or can't keep up with the DRAM controller. An obvious test is to replace your existing memory module with the other memory module and see if you experience problems. If you experience no problems, then it's not the module. Most likely it's the DRAM controller (or a capacitence problem due to timing). Some BIOSs allow you to adjust the DRAM controller timings (RAS, CAS, clock). You may have to slow down the timings to stabalize the memory access. I have a DELL computer at work that is supposed to be able to take 128M (4 banks of 32M) in SIMMs, but no matter what brand of memory (I went through 4 different manufacturers), it always caused OS crashes. Yet, if I load it with 64M (4 banks of 16M) its completely stable. That computers BIOS doesn't allow me to change the DRAM timings, so I'm stuck with 64M. This is just to illustrate that it might not be the memory, but the controller thats the problem. > I've been running Mandrake 7.2 on another machine for some time - no > problem, until. I added another 64 MB RAM and tried to install > redhat (25 times (!!!)) and Mandrake 8.0... Both crash with memory > faults. Redhat just freezes or givesa a python warning, Mandrake > gives a segfault with a warning that "memory is missing" Both refuse > to complete installation... When you boot the installer (either from CD or floppy) you get the option to add kernel parameters before the installer kernel actually boots. Try adding the parameter "mem=128M" or "mem=64M". This will restrict the installer to using a subset of the total memory. In my experience, the installer environment of most distributions is not very robust, but once installed, the normal system is quite stable. > I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in > my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me > that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128 > MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems? > And can that same person PLEASE point out to me why 2.4.x is crashing on > me (or help me to find out...)? Really, we need more information than "can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine". What brand/make motherboard? > First machine is a Intel P-II 400 with 128 MB RAM (133 MHz SDRAM) and > crashing when I insert an additional 128 - it's running RH-7.0 with > kernel-2.4.4. Second machine is an AMD Duron 600 with 196 MB RAM (also > 133 MHz SDRAM), crashing during the installation of both Mandrake 8.0 > and Redhat 7.1 and which used to run stable with 128 MB RAM or 64 MB RAM > with Mandrake-7.2. Win2k runs stable on this machine in all > configurations. Each OS allocates the physical memory differently. MS-Windows typically allocates physical memory sequentually. Linux tends to uses both ends of the memory pool. For a proper test, you need to load enough programs so that all of physical memory will be utilized. Win2k may be "stable" because you aren't loading enough of the system to touch the second bank of memory. Please try running several large programs and exercise them all together for several minutes. You can use the task manager to find the total memory used on the system. > I'm getting desperate win2k is running stable and it's scary to see > linux crash while win2k runs stable and smooth. It's kinda funny, but I actually use MS-Windows NT as a memory/controller tester ;-). In my experience, I've found that Windows is much more demanding/picky of the hardware than Linux is (Linux installer experiences being the notable exception). > (ps I'm not subscribed to the list - please CC a copy to me when > replying) > > Thanks in advance for any help on this, > -- > Ronald Bultje -- Peter A. Castro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> or <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Cats are just autistic Dogs" -- Dr. Tony Attwood - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
Hmm, I have no problems either. Asus KT7 KT133 Chipset root@station2-lnx:~# uname -a Linux station2-lnx 2.4.6 #10 Thu Jul 5 11:08:39 CDT 2001 i686 unknown root@station2-lnx:~# free total used free sharedbuffers cached Mem:512944 509888 3056 0 32140 417532 -/+ buffers/cache: 60216 452728 Swap: 1100444 01100444 > > > Can someone please > > point out to me > > that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with > > more than 128 > > MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems? > > And can that same person PLEASE point out to me why 2.4.x is > > crashing on > > me (or help me to find out...)? > > %uname -a > Linux cartman 2.4.0-64GB-SMP #1 SMP Wed Jan 24 15:52:30 GMT 2001 i686 > unknown > %uptime > 8:35am up 57 days, 12:42, 2 users, load average: 2.00, 2.00, 2.00 > %free > total used free shared buffers cached > Mem:254904251968 2936 092224 45028 > -/+ buffers/cache:114716140188 > Swap: 524656 14192510464 > > Could this be a 2.4 swap issue. You NEED at least RAM x2 swap. If you're > just adding memory to > a box that's stable with 128 megs and possibly 256 megs swap (you don't > state, just guessing..) > you've now got too little swap, and boom, stability goes bye-bye. > > Just haven't seen the swap issue mentioned this thread... > > =Don= > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- Gary White Network Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet Pathway Voice 601-776-3355Fax 601-776-2314 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
> Can someone please > point out to me > that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with > more than 128 > MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems? > And can that same person PLEASE point out to me why 2.4.x is > crashing on > me (or help me to find out...)? %uname -a Linux cartman 2.4.0-64GB-SMP #1 SMP Wed Jan 24 15:52:30 GMT 2001 i686 unknown %uptime 8:35am up 57 days, 12:42, 2 users, load average: 2.00, 2.00, 2.00 %free total used free shared buffers cached Mem:254904251968 2936 092224 45028 -/+ buffers/cache:114716140188 Swap: 524656 14192510464 Could this be a 2.4 swap issue. You NEED at least RAM x2 swap. If you're just adding memory to a box that's stable with 128 megs and possibly 256 megs swap (you don't state, just guessing..) you've now got too little swap, and boom, stability goes bye-bye. Just haven't seen the swap issue mentioned this thread... =Don= - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
> "Ragnar" == Ragnar Hojland Espinosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Ragnar> And here's a counter claim: At home have 128 + 64, both of Ragnar> different speeds and brands. Of course, to run properly you Ragnar> have to force the pc100 to run at 66, but other than that Ragnar> they're happy (96MB swap) [...] Yes, I imagine Linux does work ;-) The fact is that SDRAM is problematic (from a hardware perspective). For the OP, it could be a bus capacitance problem. If the boards are older, they might not be designed for larger memories with have a higher capacitance. Slowing down the accesses will stop the problem. You would do this by going to the BIOS and changing the CAS and RAS timings (or maybe you can change the SDRAM clock). SDRAM has a `NOP' state so that you can run at a higher clock speed, but delay a command. Anyways, I don't think that Linux is messing with the SDRAM controllers, but I am not an authority. Also, a single stick is always better than several smaller memory sizes. I was looking at the memtest86 web sight "http://www.memtest86.com/; and I didn't see anything that test for SDRAM cache lines. Single beat SDRAM read/writes are less stressful than BURSTS. It is typical for single beats read/write to work while bursts fail as four 32 bit values are written and read in quick succession. The `algorithm' description on the web page doesn't seem to test for this issue from what I see... of course I have been wrong before! regards, Bill Pringlemeir - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
Ronald Bultje wrote: > No, it's the installation so I'm booting from the CD (mdk-8/RH-7.1 > installation CDs). Your cd might be corrupted. If you are using the same cd for both machines, try changing it. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
Ronald Bultje wrote: > > On 04 Jul 2001 17:29:12 -0400, Chris Siebenmann wrote: > > You write: > > | I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in > > | my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me > > | that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128 > > | MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems? > > > > Me. Two machines. (Both 2.4.5 high -ac kernels.) > > > > I strongly suggest getting memtest86 and running it on all of your > > problematic machines. > > I ran memtest tonight on all machines > It gave 0 errors on all of them. > > So this leads to the conclusion that the memory is okay, and that > something else must be the problem Could it still be a failing power > supply or something? It seems both computers have a 230 W power supply. > Might be a problem, I guess, I can buy a 400 W thingy if that makes > sense. > > Other solutions I heard: > - antistatic wrist strap: already have one :-) > - BIOS fiddling... What exactly should I look for? They are, as far as I > can see, identical memory sticks, probably both from different > suppliers, but besides that quite the same Look for wait states. Add a wait state, which slows down access to the ram (if it doesn't help, put it back where it was). > - are there different brands of memory of different quality and might > that be a possible cause of the problems? And if so - what are good > memory brands and what are the bad ones? > - I mixed different types of SDRAM... Could be it My mainboard > manual is not really clear about this And I have no clue what brand > of memory I bought... they are all 133 MHz SDRAM sticks, some 64 MB, > some 128 MB MB manual says it can handle all 64/128 MB sticks... Mixing different types is a bad thing to leave to chance. Corsair and Kingston I *think* are good brands. > - Try each memory stick by itself; if it only fails when both are in at once, reverse the slots they are in; if it still fails, get another stick that is the same brand and type as another, try just those together. > > Anyway, thanks for any advice until now and thanks for listening again, > hope to hear more solutions. > > -- > Ronald Bultje > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
On 05 Jul 2001 01:40:47 -0700, Reza Roboubi wrote: > You have dual boot machines(right?) Which boot loader are you using to boot > linux? Could this be related to the boot loader messing up the initial state > of the machine? No, it's the installation so I'm booting from the CD (mdk-8/RH-7.1 installation CDs). -- Ronald Bultje - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
> So this leads to the conclusion that the memory is okay, and that > something else must be the problem Could it still be a failing power > supply or something? It seems both computers have a 230 W power supply. > Might be a problem, I guess, I can buy a 400 W thingy if that makes > sense. Can't comment. Another post states that they are using a 400W with problems. > Other solutions I heard: > - antistatic wrist strap: already have one :-) > - BIOS fiddling... What exactly should I look for? They are, as far as I > can see, identical memory sticks, probably both from different > suppliers, but besides that quite the same > - are there different brands of memory of different quality and might > that be a possible cause of the problems? And if so - what are good > memory brands and what are the bad ones? > - I mixed different types of SDRAM... Could be it My mainboard > manual is not really clear about this And I have no clue what brand > of memory I bought... they are all 133 MHz SDRAM sticks, some 64 MB, > some 128 MB MB manual says it can handle all 64/128 MB sticks... > - Are you mixing connector types, ie gold/silver (I can't remember what they are made of )? This _will_ give you problems, among which including stability. You should _always_ match connectors with the mainboard. I apologize if you already know this. > Anyway, thanks for any advice until now and thanks for listening again, > hope to hear more solutions. See above, I'm just throwing out a potential solution. -- Chris Bacott - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
Ronald Bultje wrote: > I ran memtest tonight on all machines > It gave 0 errors on all of them. You have dual boot machines(right?) Which boot loader are you using to boot linux? Could this be related to the boot loader messing up the initial state of the machine? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
>> > >I ran memtest tonight on all machines >It gave 0 errors on all of them. > >So this leads to the conclusion that the memory is okay, and that >something else must be the problem Could it still be a failing power >supply or something? It seems both computers have a 230 W power supply. >Might be a problem, I guess, I can buy a 400 W thingy if that makes >sense. > Happening with me and a 300watt supply... > > I am beta testing the Dockingstation for Creatures, and I got some extras for it. But on my SuSE box the thing freezes within minutes, if use all the agents. Its a very proccessor and memory intensive app. And I have 256MB ram. Just watched it crash when I started mozilla Only just found out people are having issue with RAM and 2.4.5? I am running 2.4.4 I do not think the program has a bug...But no-one else is even saying anything which is very annoying. Matt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 11:16:43PM -0400, Bill Pringlemeir wrote: > I also have had problems with a machine that had 128Mb + 64 Mb. I > discovered the following about 2.4.x. You _should_ have a swap file > that is double RAM. Mixing different SDRAM types is probably a bad > thing. So if you upgraded, then that might be problematic. And here's a counter claim: At home have 128 + 64, both of different speeds and brands. Of course, to run properly you have to force the pc100 to run at 66, but other than that they're happy (96MB swap) -- /| Ragnar Højland Freedom - Linux - OpenGL |Brainbench MVP \ o.O| PGP94C4B2F0D27DE025BE2302C104B78C56 B72F0822 | for Unix Programming =(_)= "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer for | (www.brainbench.com) U chaos and madness await thee at its end." - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
On 04 Jul 2001 17:29:12 -0400, Chris Siebenmann wrote: > You write: > | I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in > | my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me > | that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128 > | MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems? > > Me. Two machines. (Both 2.4.5 high -ac kernels.) > > I strongly suggest getting memtest86 and running it on all of your > problematic machines. I ran memtest tonight on all machines It gave 0 errors on all of them. So this leads to the conclusion that the memory is okay, and that something else must be the problem Could it still be a failing power supply or something? It seems both computers have a 230 W power supply. Might be a problem, I guess, I can buy a 400 W thingy if that makes sense. Other solutions I heard: - antistatic wrist strap: already have one :-) - BIOS fiddling... What exactly should I look for? They are, as far as I can see, identical memory sticks, probably both from different suppliers, but besides that quite the same - are there different brands of memory of different quality and might that be a possible cause of the problems? And if so - what are good memory brands and what are the bad ones? - I mixed different types of SDRAM... Could be it My mainboard manual is not really clear about this And I have no clue what brand of memory I bought... they are all 133 MHz SDRAM sticks, some 64 MB, some 128 MB MB manual says it can handle all 64/128 MB sticks... - Anyway, thanks for any advice until now and thanks for listening again, hope to hear more solutions. -- Ronald Bultje - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
On 04 Jul 2001 17:29:12 -0400, Chris Siebenmann wrote: You write: | I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in | my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me | that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128 | MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems? Me. Two machines. (Both 2.4.5 high -ac kernels.) I strongly suggest getting memtest86 and running it on all of your problematic machines. I ran memtest tonight on all machines It gave 0 errors on all of them. So this leads to the conclusion that the memory is okay, and that something else must be the problem Could it still be a failing power supply or something? It seems both computers have a 230 W power supply. Might be a problem, I guess, I can buy a 400 W thingy if that makes sense. Other solutions I heard: - antistatic wrist strap: already have one :-) - BIOS fiddling... What exactly should I look for? They are, as far as I can see, identical memory sticks, probably both from different suppliers, but besides that quite the same - are there different brands of memory of different quality and might that be a possible cause of the problems? And if so - what are good memory brands and what are the bad ones? - I mixed different types of SDRAM... Could be it My mainboard manual is not really clear about this And I have no clue what brand of memory I bought... they are all 133 MHz SDRAM sticks, some 64 MB, some 128 MB MB manual says it can handle all 64/128 MB sticks... - your solution here :-) Anyway, thanks for any advice until now and thanks for listening again, hope to hear more solutions. -- Ronald Bultje - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
snip I ran memtest tonight on all machines It gave 0 errors on all of them. So this leads to the conclusion that the memory is okay, and that something else must be the problem Could it still be a failing power supply or something? It seems both computers have a 230 W power supply. Might be a problem, I guess, I can buy a 400 W thingy if that makes sense. Happening with me and a 300watt supply... snip I am beta testing the Dockingstation for Creatures, and I got some extras for it. But on my SuSE box the thing freezes within minutes, if use all the agents. Its a very proccessor and memory intensive app. And I have 256MB ram. Just watched it crash when I started mozilla Only just found out people are having issue with RAM and 2.4.5? I am running 2.4.4 I do not think the program has a bug...But no-one else is even saying anything which is very annoying. Matt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
Ronald Bultje wrote: I ran memtest tonight on all machines It gave 0 errors on all of them. You have dual boot machines(right?) Which boot loader are you using to boot linux? Could this be related to the boot loader messing up the initial state of the machine? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
So this leads to the conclusion that the memory is okay, and that something else must be the problem Could it still be a failing power supply or something? It seems both computers have a 230 W power supply. Might be a problem, I guess, I can buy a 400 W thingy if that makes sense. Can't comment. Another post states that they are using a 400W with problems. Other solutions I heard: - antistatic wrist strap: already have one :-) - BIOS fiddling... What exactly should I look for? They are, as far as I can see, identical memory sticks, probably both from different suppliers, but besides that quite the same - are there different brands of memory of different quality and might that be a possible cause of the problems? And if so - what are good memory brands and what are the bad ones? - I mixed different types of SDRAM... Could be it My mainboard manual is not really clear about this And I have no clue what brand of memory I bought... they are all 133 MHz SDRAM sticks, some 64 MB, some 128 MB MB manual says it can handle all 64/128 MB sticks... - your solution here :-) Are you mixing connector types, ie gold/silver (I can't remember what they are made of )? This _will_ give you problems, among which including stability. You should _always_ match connectors with the mainboard. I apologize if you already know this. Anyway, thanks for any advice until now and thanks for listening again, hope to hear more solutions. See above, I'm just throwing out a potential solution. -- Chris Bacott - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
On 05 Jul 2001 01:40:47 -0700, Reza Roboubi wrote: You have dual boot machines(right?) Which boot loader are you using to boot linux? Could this be related to the boot loader messing up the initial state of the machine? No, it's the installation so I'm booting from the CD (mdk-8/RH-7.1 installation CDs). -- Ronald Bultje - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
Ronald Bultje wrote: On 04 Jul 2001 17:29:12 -0400, Chris Siebenmann wrote: You write: | I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in | my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me | that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128 | MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems? Me. Two machines. (Both 2.4.5 high -ac kernels.) I strongly suggest getting memtest86 and running it on all of your problematic machines. I ran memtest tonight on all machines It gave 0 errors on all of them. So this leads to the conclusion that the memory is okay, and that something else must be the problem Could it still be a failing power supply or something? It seems both computers have a 230 W power supply. Might be a problem, I guess, I can buy a 400 W thingy if that makes sense. Other solutions I heard: - antistatic wrist strap: already have one :-) - BIOS fiddling... What exactly should I look for? They are, as far as I can see, identical memory sticks, probably both from different suppliers, but besides that quite the same Look for wait states. Add a wait state, which slows down access to the ram (if it doesn't help, put it back where it was). - are there different brands of memory of different quality and might that be a possible cause of the problems? And if so - what are good memory brands and what are the bad ones? - I mixed different types of SDRAM... Could be it My mainboard manual is not really clear about this And I have no clue what brand of memory I bought... they are all 133 MHz SDRAM sticks, some 64 MB, some 128 MB MB manual says it can handle all 64/128 MB sticks... Mixing different types is a bad thing to leave to chance. Corsair and Kingston I *think* are good brands. - your solution here :-) Try each memory stick by itself; if it only fails when both are in at once, reverse the slots they are in; if it still fails, get another stick that is the same brand and type as another, try just those together. Anyway, thanks for any advice until now and thanks for listening again, hope to hear more solutions. -- Ronald Bultje - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
Ronald Bultje wrote: No, it's the installation so I'm booting from the CD (mdk-8/RH-7.1 installation CDs). Your cd might be corrupted. If you are using the same cd for both machines, try changing it. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: 128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
Can someone please point out to me that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128 MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems? And can that same person PLEASE point out to me why 2.4.x is crashing on me (or help me to find out...)? %uname -a Linux cartman 2.4.0-64GB-SMP #1 SMP Wed Jan 24 15:52:30 GMT 2001 i686 unknown %uptime 8:35am up 57 days, 12:42, 2 users, load average: 2.00, 2.00, 2.00 %free total used free shared buffers cached Mem:254904251968 2936 092224 45028 -/+ buffers/cache:114716140188 Swap: 524656 14192510464 Could this be a 2.4 swap issue. You NEED at least RAM x2 swap. If you're just adding memory to a box that's stable with 128 megs and possibly 256 megs swap (you don't state, just guessing..) you've now got too little swap, and boom, stability goes bye-bye. Just haven't seen the swap issue mentioned this thread... =Don= - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
Hmm, I have no problems either. Asus KT7 KT133 Chipset root@station2-lnx:~# uname -a Linux station2-lnx 2.4.6 #10 Thu Jul 5 11:08:39 CDT 2001 i686 unknown root@station2-lnx:~# free total used free sharedbuffers cached Mem:512944 509888 3056 0 32140 417532 -/+ buffers/cache: 60216 452728 Swap: 1100444 01100444 Can someone please point out to me that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128 MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems? And can that same person PLEASE point out to me why 2.4.x is crashing on me (or help me to find out...)? %uname -a Linux cartman 2.4.0-64GB-SMP #1 SMP Wed Jan 24 15:52:30 GMT 2001 i686 unknown %uptime 8:35am up 57 days, 12:42, 2 users, load average: 2.00, 2.00, 2.00 %free total used free shared buffers cached Mem:254904251968 2936 092224 45028 -/+ buffers/cache:114716140188 Swap: 524656 14192510464 Could this be a 2.4 swap issue. You NEED at least RAM x2 swap. If you're just adding memory to a box that's stable with 128 megs and possibly 256 megs swap (you don't state, just guessing..) you've now got too little swap, and boom, stability goes bye-bye. Just haven't seen the swap issue mentioned this thread... =Don= - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- Gary White Network Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet Pathway Voice 601-776-3355Fax 601-776-2314 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
On 4 Jul 2001, Ronald Bultje wrote: Hi, Hi back at you :-) you might remember an e-mail from me (two weeks ago) with my problems where linux would not boot up or be highly instable on a machine with 256 MB RAM, while it was 100% stable with 128 MB RAM. Basically, I still have this problem, so I am running with 128 MB RAM again. This can mean (but is not limited to) that the second memory module is bad, or can't keep up with the DRAM controller. An obvious test is to replace your existing memory module with the other memory module and see if you experience problems. If you experience no problems, then it's not the module. Most likely it's the DRAM controller (or a capacitence problem due to timing). Some BIOSs allow you to adjust the DRAM controller timings (RAS, CAS, clock). You may have to slow down the timings to stabalize the memory access. I have a DELL computer at work that is supposed to be able to take 128M (4 banks of 32M) in SIMMs, but no matter what brand of memory (I went through 4 different manufacturers), it always caused OS crashes. Yet, if I load it with 64M (4 banks of 16M) its completely stable. That computers BIOS doesn't allow me to change the DRAM timings, so I'm stuck with 64M. This is just to illustrate that it might not be the memory, but the controller thats the problem. I've been running Mandrake 7.2 on another machine for some time - no problem, until. I added another 64 MB RAM and tried to install redhat (25 times (!!!)) and Mandrake 8.0... Both crash with memory faults. Redhat just freezes or givesa a python warning, Mandrake gives a segfault with a warning that memory is missing Both refuse to complete installation... When you boot the installer (either from CD or floppy) you get the option to add kernel parameters before the installer kernel actually boots. Try adding the parameter mem=128M or mem=64M. This will restrict the installer to using a subset of the total memory. In my experience, the installer environment of most distributions is not very robust, but once installed, the normal system is quite stable. I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128 MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems? And can that same person PLEASE point out to me why 2.4.x is crashing on me (or help me to find out...)? Really, we need more information than can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine. What brand/make motherboard? First machine is a Intel P-II 400 with 128 MB RAM (133 MHz SDRAM) and crashing when I insert an additional 128 - it's running RH-7.0 with kernel-2.4.4. Second machine is an AMD Duron 600 with 196 MB RAM (also 133 MHz SDRAM), crashing during the installation of both Mandrake 8.0 and Redhat 7.1 and which used to run stable with 128 MB RAM or 64 MB RAM with Mandrake-7.2. Win2k runs stable on this machine in all configurations. Each OS allocates the physical memory differently. MS-Windows typically allocates physical memory sequentually. Linux tends to uses both ends of the memory pool. For a proper test, you need to load enough programs so that all of physical memory will be utilized. Win2k may be stable because you aren't loading enough of the system to touch the second bank of memory. Please try running several large programs and exercise them all together for several minutes. You can use the task manager to find the total memory used on the system. I'm getting desperate win2k is running stable and it's scary to see linux crash while win2k runs stable and smooth. It's kinda funny, but I actually use MS-Windows NT as a memory/controller tester ;-). In my experience, I've found that Windows is much more demanding/picky of the hardware than Linux is (Linux installer experiences being the notable exception). (ps I'm not subscribed to the list - please CC a copy to me when replying) Thanks in advance for any help on this, -- Ronald Bultje -- Peter A. Castro [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cats are just autistic Dogs -- Dr. Tony Attwood - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 11:16:43PM -0400, Bill Pringlemeir wrote: I also have had problems with a machine that had 128Mb + 64 Mb. I discovered the following about 2.4.x. You _should_ have a swap file that is double RAM. Mixing different SDRAM types is probably a bad thing. So if you upgraded, then that might be problematic. And here's a counter claim: At home have 128 + 64, both of different speeds and brands. Of course, to run properly you have to force the pc100 to run at 66, but other than that they're happy (96MB swap) -- /| Ragnar Højland Freedom - Linux - OpenGL |Brainbench MVP \ o.O| PGP94C4B2F0D27DE025BE2302C104B78C56 B72F0822 | for Unix Programming =(_)= Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer for | (www.brainbench.com) U chaos and madness await thee at its end. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
Ragnar == Ragnar Hojland Espinosa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ragnar And here's a counter claim: At home have 128 + 64, both of Ragnar different speeds and brands. Of course, to run properly you Ragnar have to force the pc100 to run at 66, but other than that Ragnar they're happy (96MB swap) [...] Yes, I imagine Linux does work ;-) The fact is that SDRAM is problematic (from a hardware perspective). For the OP, it could be a bus capacitance problem. If the boards are older, they might not be designed for larger memories with have a higher capacitance. Slowing down the accesses will stop the problem. You would do this by going to the BIOS and changing the CAS and RAS timings (or maybe you can change the SDRAM clock). SDRAM has a `NOP' state so that you can run at a higher clock speed, but delay a command. Anyways, I don't think that Linux is messing with the SDRAM controllers, but I am not an authority. Also, a single stick is always better than several smaller memory sizes. I was looking at the memtest86 web sight http://www.memtest86.com/; and I didn't see anything that test for SDRAM cache lines. Single beat SDRAM read/writes are less stressful than BURSTS. It is typical for single beats read/write to work while bursts fail as four 32 bit values are written and read in quick succession. The `algorithm' description on the web page doesn't seem to test for this issue from what I see... of course I have been wrong before! regards, Bill Pringlemeir - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
>> I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY >> machine in my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone >> please point out to me Alan> Can I suggest you change your memory vendor and/or get an Alan> antistatic wrist strap ? I also have had problems with a machine that had 128Mb + 64 Mb. I discovered the following about 2.4.x. You _should_ have a swap file that is double RAM. Mixing different SDRAM types is probably a bad thing. So if you upgraded, then that might be problematic. However, when I did have 196 Mb it completely trashed my file system. I also work with electronic components and these were handled in an ESD safe manner. It may be possible to set the SDRAM controller to handle disparate SDRAM chips...but it is probably very painful. I have done this on an MPC860 and a Coldfire chip. However, I haven't the faintest clue about PC controllers. Perhaps when I am feeling brave again, I will return to try additional memory. hth, Bill Pringlemeir. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
> > Nobody has answered a basic concern: > Why does Win2k work while Linux does not? The answer could be as simple as the fact that Linux might be trying to write to the exact memory location that is bad but Win2k has not. It might also be that he in fact DOES have problems with win2k but is unaware of it, that location might be used for data storage rather than program execution. All I can say is this ... I have never used Windows on our production web farms and Linux 2.4 appears to work just fine will many different sizes of memory ... all greater than 128MB. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
Reza Roboubi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nobody has answered a basic concern: > Why does Win2k work while Linux does not? I did post a possible answer for this: different OSes excercise the memory subsystem very differently. This is why a box might run (say) Win95 apparently stably, but not be able to run Linux. The same reasoning applies to other OSes. I've seen this many times myself. Charles -- --- Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ --- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
Nobody has answered a basic concern: Why does Win2k work while Linux does not? We already know that MiciSoft sometimes helps make stupid standards like P ISA cards and then writes drivers for them. Something that is hard to do for any _sane_ developers who did not help make the stupid "standard". Having said that, if anybody has a technical answer for Ronald please give it to him. He says: My systems ARE FINE BECAUSE Win2k runs on them. This deserves a direct technical answer if anybody has one. I'm a Linux user and proud of it. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
Yes, I have an Athlon 700 on a Asus/K7V motherboard with 256 MB PC 133 RAM. Never had any problem with this configuration. Before that, however, there was an Pentium 120 with 64 MB RAM. This one used to crash during kernel-compiles due to an overheated processor. Really funny. Later I got kernel-panics during boot due to pagetable-corruption. This time it was bad RAM and went awayx after I changed one certain module. So I would almost certainly relate Your problem to hardware failure. Good success Peter B - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
Ronald Bultje wrote: > > Hi, > > you might remember an e-mail from me (two weeks ago) with my problems > where linux would not boot up or be highly instable on a machine with > 256 MB RAM, while it was 100% stable with 128 MB RAM. Basically, I still > have this problem, so I am running with 128 MB RAM again. Some motherboards have ram requirements that might not be obvious without reading the m/b manual. For example, some m/b's require registered memory. Some don't work with ECC. Some require modules be installed in pairs (of exact type match). Some require that larger memory sticks be placed in earlier slots relative to smaller modules. And if you add a wait state in the bios a marginal ram module can become quite stable; the unstable version can behave differently under different circumstances (including temperature). Check the m/b manual and m/b web site for exact requirements, and make sure the ram matches; even if your memory is good, it might not be good in your circumstances. D. Stimits, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I've been running Mandrake 7.2 on another machine for some time - no > problem, until. I added another 64 MB RAM and tried to install > redhat (25 times (!!!)) and Mandrake 8.0... Both crash with memory > faults. Redhat just freezes or givesa a python warning, Mandrake > gives a segfault with a warning that "memory is missing" Both refuse > to complete installation... > > I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in > my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me > that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128 > MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems? > And can that same person PLEASE point out to me why 2.4.x is crashing on > me (or help me to find out...)? > > First machine is a Intel P-II 400 with 128 MB RAM (133 MHz SDRAM) and > crashing when I insert an additional 128 - it's running RH-7.0 with > kernel-2.4.4. Second machine is an AMD Duron 600 with 196 MB RAM (also > 133 MHz SDRAM), crashing during the installation of both Mandrake 8.0 > and Redhat 7.1 and which used to run stable with 128 MB RAM or 64 MB RAM > with Mandrake-7.2. Win2k runs stable on this machine in all > configurations. > > I'm getting desperate win2k is running stable and it's scary to see > linux crash while win2k runs stable and smooth. > > (ps I'm not subscribed to the list - please CC a copy to me when > replying) > > Thanks in advance for any help on this, > > -- > Ronald Bultje > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
On 04 Jul 2001 17:06:51 -0300, Alessandro Motter Ren wrote: > > Which filesystem are you using on this machine? > []s. ext2 -- Ronald - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
> From: Alessandro Motter Ren [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Which filesystem are you using on this machine? > []s. > ext2fs on the production farm but I also have a pair of machines (SMB P-III 800) using reiserfs on mail spools. That pair of machines is not particularly busy, though. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
Which filesystem are you using on this machine? []s. -Original Message- From: George Bonser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 5:06 PM To: Ronald Bultje; Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: RE: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again) > I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in > my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me > that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128 > MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems? Running 2.4.6-pre and 2.4.6 proper on several machines. Quite busy and all have 256 to 512MB of RAM. As I type this, I am in the process of converting an entire production server farm over to 2.4.6 from 2.2.19 as the 2.4.6-pre series proved out well on a test machine in that farm. No stability problems at all. The only reboots were for patching up the kernel to the next -pre revision on that test box. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
On 4 Jul 2001, Ronald Bultje wrote: > Hi, > > you might remember an e-mail from me (two weeks ago) with my problems > where linux would not boot up or be highly instable on a machine with > 256 MB RAM, while it was 100% stable with 128 MB RAM. Basically, I still > have this problem, so I am running with 128 MB RAM again. I suggest you look into the memory settings in your BIOS, and change them to the most conservative available. Or, throw out your memory and buy some from a reputable manufacturer. Your problem is definitely hardware. There are racks full of linux machines with more than 128 MB RAM running kernel 2.4 all over the world. I personally installed a dozen. It always works fine. -jwb - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
> I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in > my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me > that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128 > MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems? Running 2.4.6-pre and 2.4.6 proper on several machines. Quite busy and all have 256 to 512MB of RAM. As I type this, I am in the process of converting an entire production server farm over to 2.4.6 from 2.2.19 as the 2.4.6-pre series proved out well on a test machine in that farm. No stability problems at all. The only reboots were for patching up the kernel to the next -pre revision on that test box. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
Ditto. One with 320, one with 256 and one with 192. All dual booting Win98 or Win2k and Mandrake 8.0 with 2.4.3. Scott - Original Message - From: "Alan Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ronald Bultje" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 2:29 PM Subject: Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again) > > I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in > > my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me > > Can I suggest you change your memory vendor and/or get an antistatic wrist > strap ? > > > that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128 > > MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems? > > Multiple boxes, all solid with 256Mb > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
Asus K7V here, 800 MHz Athlon oc to 880 MHz, 256 Mb, occasional XFree86 lockups, otherwise stable with almost any of the v2.4.x series including -ac variants and the testing kernels. Right now 2.4.6-pre5, doing fine. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
> I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in > my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me Can I suggest you change your memory vendor and/or get an antistatic wrist strap ? > that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128 > MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems? Multiple boxes, all solid with 256Mb - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
Ronald Bultje <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > you might remember an e-mail from me (two weeks ago) with my problems > where linux would not boot up or be highly instable on a machine with > 256 MB RAM, while it was 100% stable with 128 MB RAM. Basically, I still > have this problem, so I am running with 128 MB RAM again. [...] > I'm getting desperate win2k is running stable and it's scary to see > linux crash while win2k runs stable and smooth. It's likely hardware problems. Different OSes excercise the memory subsystems quite differently, so it's possible (and common) to see problems in one OS where another appears to run fine. Download memtest86 and test your system with 256MB in it -- if it reports any problems, it's definitely hardware. Charles -- --- Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ --- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
Ronald Bultje wrote: > I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in > my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me > that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128 > MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems? I don't have the answer for your situation, but in answer to one of your questions I can happily enumerate the following boxes I installed, all of which are running 2.4.x kernels on Red Hat 7.1 with excellent stability and performance: "Name Brand" boxes: (3) Dell 2450s, Dual P3-1000, 512 MB RAM (2) HP Netservers, P3-700, 512 MB RAM Compaq 6500, Quad PPro 200, 1 GB RAM Self built clone boxes: AMD K6/2 450, 256 MB RAM, low end ASUS mb P3-933, 512 MB RAM, Intel i810 motherboard P3-866, 512 MB RAM, Aopen motherboard and more - These boxes either have an uptime dating from the initial 7.1 install (60+ days), or from the last kernel update - cu jjs - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
Hi, you might remember an e-mail from me (two weeks ago) with my problems where linux would not boot up or be highly instable on a machine with 256 MB RAM, while it was 100% stable with 128 MB RAM. Basically, I still have this problem, so I am running with 128 MB RAM again. I've been running Mandrake 7.2 on another machine for some time - no problem, until. I added another 64 MB RAM and tried to install redhat (25 times (!!!)) and Mandrake 8.0... Both crash with memory faults. Redhat just freezes or givesa a python warning, Mandrake gives a segfault with a warning that "memory is missing" Both refuse to complete installation... I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128 MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems? And can that same person PLEASE point out to me why 2.4.x is crashing on me (or help me to find out...)? First machine is a Intel P-II 400 with 128 MB RAM (133 MHz SDRAM) and crashing when I insert an additional 128 - it's running RH-7.0 with kernel-2.4.4. Second machine is an AMD Duron 600 with 196 MB RAM (also 133 MHz SDRAM), crashing during the installation of both Mandrake 8.0 and Redhat 7.1 and which used to run stable with 128 MB RAM or 64 MB RAM with Mandrake-7.2. Win2k runs stable on this machine in all configurations. I'm getting desperate win2k is running stable and it's scary to see linux crash while win2k runs stable and smooth. (ps I'm not subscribed to the list - please CC a copy to me when replying) Thanks in advance for any help on this, -- Ronald Bultje - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
Hi, you might remember an e-mail from me (two weeks ago) with my problems where linux would not boot up or be highly instable on a machine with 256 MB RAM, while it was 100% stable with 128 MB RAM. Basically, I still have this problem, so I am running with 128 MB RAM again. I've been running Mandrake 7.2 on another machine for some time - no problem, until. I added another 64 MB RAM and tried to install redhat (25 times (!!!)) and Mandrake 8.0... Both crash with memory faults. Redhat just freezes or givesa a python warning, Mandrake gives a segfault with a warning that memory is missing Both refuse to complete installation... I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128 MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems? And can that same person PLEASE point out to me why 2.4.x is crashing on me (or help me to find out...)? First machine is a Intel P-II 400 with 128 MB RAM (133 MHz SDRAM) and crashing when I insert an additional 128 - it's running RH-7.0 with kernel-2.4.4. Second machine is an AMD Duron 600 with 196 MB RAM (also 133 MHz SDRAM), crashing during the installation of both Mandrake 8.0 and Redhat 7.1 and which used to run stable with 128 MB RAM or 64 MB RAM with Mandrake-7.2. Win2k runs stable on this machine in all configurations. I'm getting desperate win2k is running stable and it's scary to see linux crash while win2k runs stable and smooth. (ps I'm not subscribed to the list - please CC a copy to me when replying) Thanks in advance for any help on this, -- Ronald Bultje - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
Ronald Bultje wrote: I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128 MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems? I don't have the answer for your situation, but in answer to one of your questions I can happily enumerate the following boxes I installed, all of which are running 2.4.x kernels on Red Hat 7.1 with excellent stability and performance: Name Brand boxes: (3) Dell 2450s, Dual P3-1000, 512 MB RAM (2) HP Netservers, P3-700, 512 MB RAM Compaq 6500, Quad PPro 200, 1 GB RAM Self built clone boxes: AMD K6/2 450, 256 MB RAM, low end ASUS mb P3-933, 512 MB RAM, Intel i810 motherboard P3-866, 512 MB RAM, Aopen motherboard and more - These boxes either have an uptime dating from the initial 7.1 install (60+ days), or from the last kernel update - cu jjs - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
Ronald Bultje [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you might remember an e-mail from me (two weeks ago) with my problems where linux would not boot up or be highly instable on a machine with 256 MB RAM, while it was 100% stable with 128 MB RAM. Basically, I still have this problem, so I am running with 128 MB RAM again. [...] I'm getting desperate win2k is running stable and it's scary to see linux crash while win2k runs stable and smooth. It's likely hardware problems. Different OSes excercise the memory subsystems quite differently, so it's possible (and common) to see problems in one OS where another appears to run fine. Download memtest86 and test your system with 256MB in it -- if it reports any problems, it's definitely hardware. Charles -- --- Charles Cazabon[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ --- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
Asus K7V here, 800 MHz Athlon oc to 880 MHz, 256 Mb, occasional XFree86 lockups, otherwise stable with almost any of the v2.4.x series including -ac variants and the testing kernels. Right now 2.4.6-pre5, doing fine. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
Ditto. One with 320, one with 256 and one with 192. All dual booting Win98 or Win2k and Mandrake 8.0 with 2.4.3. Scott - Original Message - From: Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ronald Bultje [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 2:29 PM Subject: Re: 128 MB RAM stability problems (again) I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me Can I suggest you change your memory vendor and/or get an antistatic wrist strap ? that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128 MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems? Multiple boxes, all solid with 256Mb - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: 128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128 MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems? Running 2.4.6-pre and 2.4.6 proper on several machines. Quite busy and all have 256 to 512MB of RAM. As I type this, I am in the process of converting an entire production server farm over to 2.4.6 from 2.2.19 as the 2.4.6-pre series proved out well on a test machine in that farm. No stability problems at all. The only reboots were for patching up the kernel to the next -pre revision on that test box. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
On 4 Jul 2001, Ronald Bultje wrote: Hi, you might remember an e-mail from me (two weeks ago) with my problems where linux would not boot up or be highly instable on a machine with 256 MB RAM, while it was 100% stable with 128 MB RAM. Basically, I still have this problem, so I am running with 128 MB RAM again. I suggest you look into the memory settings in your BIOS, and change them to the most conservative available. Or, throw out your memory and buy some from a reputable manufacturer. Your problem is definitely hardware. There are racks full of linux machines with more than 128 MB RAM running kernel 2.4 all over the world. I personally installed a dozen. It always works fine. -jwb - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: 128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
Which filesystem are you using on this machine? []s. -Original Message- From: George Bonser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 5:06 PM To: Ronald Bultje; Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: RE: 128 MB RAM stability problems (again) I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128 MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems? Running 2.4.6-pre and 2.4.6 proper on several machines. Quite busy and all have 256 to 512MB of RAM. As I type this, I am in the process of converting an entire production server farm over to 2.4.6 from 2.2.19 as the 2.4.6-pre series proved out well on a test machine in that farm. No stability problems at all. The only reboots were for patching up the kernel to the next -pre revision on that test box. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: 128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
From: Alessandro Motter Ren [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Which filesystem are you using on this machine? []s. ext2fs on the production farm but I also have a pair of machines (SMB P-III 800) using reiserfs on mail spools. That pair of machines is not particularly busy, though. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: 128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
On 04 Jul 2001 17:06:51 -0300, Alessandro Motter Ren wrote: Which filesystem are you using on this machine? []s. ext2 -- Ronald - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
Ronald Bultje wrote: Hi, you might remember an e-mail from me (two weeks ago) with my problems where linux would not boot up or be highly instable on a machine with 256 MB RAM, while it was 100% stable with 128 MB RAM. Basically, I still have this problem, so I am running with 128 MB RAM again. Some motherboards have ram requirements that might not be obvious without reading the m/b manual. For example, some m/b's require registered memory. Some don't work with ECC. Some require modules be installed in pairs (of exact type match). Some require that larger memory sticks be placed in earlier slots relative to smaller modules. And if you add a wait state in the bios a marginal ram module can become quite stable; the unstable version can behave differently under different circumstances (including temperature). Check the m/b manual and m/b web site for exact requirements, and make sure the ram matches; even if your memory is good, it might not be good in your circumstances. D. Stimits, [EMAIL PROTECTED] I've been running Mandrake 7.2 on another machine for some time - no problem, until. I added another 64 MB RAM and tried to install redhat (25 times (!!!)) and Mandrake 8.0... Both crash with memory faults. Redhat just freezes or givesa a python warning, Mandrake gives a segfault with a warning that memory is missing Both refuse to complete installation... I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128 MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems? And can that same person PLEASE point out to me why 2.4.x is crashing on me (or help me to find out...)? First machine is a Intel P-II 400 with 128 MB RAM (133 MHz SDRAM) and crashing when I insert an additional 128 - it's running RH-7.0 with kernel-2.4.4. Second machine is an AMD Duron 600 with 196 MB RAM (also 133 MHz SDRAM), crashing during the installation of both Mandrake 8.0 and Redhat 7.1 and which used to run stable with 128 MB RAM or 64 MB RAM with Mandrake-7.2. Win2k runs stable on this machine in all configurations. I'm getting desperate win2k is running stable and it's scary to see linux crash while win2k runs stable and smooth. (ps I'm not subscribed to the list - please CC a copy to me when replying) Thanks in advance for any help on this, -- Ronald Bultje - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
Yes, I have an Athlon 700 on a Asus/K7V motherboard with 256 MB PC 133 RAM. Never had any problem with this configuration. Before that, however, there was an Pentium 120 with 64 MB RAM. This one used to crash during kernel-compiles due to an overheated processor. Really funny. Later I got kernel-panics during boot due to pagetable-corruption. This time it was bad RAM and went awayx after I changed one certain module. So I would almost certainly relate Your problem to hardware failure. Good success Peter B - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
Nobody has answered a basic concern: Why does Win2k work while Linux does not? We already know that MiciSoft sometimes helps make stupid standards like PP ISA cards and then writes drivers for them. Something that is hard to do for any _sane_ developers who did not help make the stupid standard. Having said that, if anybody has a technical answer for Ronald please give it to him. He says: My systems ARE FINE BECAUSE Win2k runs on them. This deserves a direct technical answer if anybody has one. I'm a Linux user and proud of it. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
Reza Roboubi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nobody has answered a basic concern: Why does Win2k work while Linux does not? I did post a possible answer for this: different OSes excercise the memory subsystem very differently. This is why a box might run (say) Win95 apparently stably, but not be able to run Linux. The same reasoning applies to other OSes. I've seen this many times myself. Charles -- --- Charles Cazabon[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ --- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: 128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
Nobody has answered a basic concern: Why does Win2k work while Linux does not? The answer could be as simple as the fact that Linux might be trying to write to the exact memory location that is bad but Win2k has not. It might also be that he in fact DOES have problems with win2k but is unaware of it, that location might be used for data storage rather than program execution. All I can say is this ... I have never used Windows on our production web farms and Linux 2.4 appears to work just fine will many different sizes of memory ... all greater than 128MB. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me Can I suggest you change your memory vendor and/or get an antistatic wrist strap ? that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128 MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems? Multiple boxes, all solid with 256Mb - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 128 MB RAM stability problems (again)
I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me Alan Can I suggest you change your memory vendor and/or get an Alan antistatic wrist strap ? I also have had problems with a machine that had 128Mb + 64 Mb. I discovered the following about 2.4.x. You _should_ have a swap file that is double RAM. Mixing different SDRAM types is probably a bad thing. So if you upgraded, then that might be problematic. However, when I did have 196 Mb it completely trashed my file system. I also work with electronic components and these were handled in an ESD safe manner. It may be possible to set the SDRAM controller to handle disparate SDRAM chips...but it is probably very painful. I have done this on an MPC860 and a Coldfire chip. However, I haven't the faintest clue about PC controllers. Perhaps when I am feeling brave again, I will return to try additional memory. hth, Bill Pringlemeir. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
