Andrew Lyon wrote:
> On 6/7/07, H. Peter Anvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Andrew Lyon wrote:
>> >
>> > Could this also cause a system to be unstable? my abit athlon64 at
>> > work will not run x64 with more than 1gb ram, and i have a colo server
>> > with supermicro & 2 x dual core xeons that wi
Andrew Lyon wrote:
>
> I have run memtest86+ for days at a time on both systems with no errors
> at all.
>
> broken hardware i guess, i am not surprised about the abit board, ive
> had nothing but trouble with abit motherboards and do not use them any
> more, but the supermicro is a xeon server b
On 6/7/07, H. Peter Anvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew Lyon wrote:
>
> Could this also cause a system to be unstable? my abit athlon64 at
> work will not run x64 with more than 1gb ram, and i have a colo server
> with supermicro & 2 x dual core xeons that will not run with more than
> 2gb.
>
Andrew Lyon wrote:
>
> Could this also cause a system to be unstable? my abit athlon64 at
> work will not run x64 with more than 1gb ram, and i have a colo server
> with supermicro & 2 x dual core xeons that will not run with more than
> 2gb.
>
> Both systems have long uptimes but if i add ram th
This looks like it would have probably given me the hint I needed. Can
I also suggest that you make a change to arch/i386/kernel/setup.c, line 296:
if (max_pfn > MAX_NONPAE_PFN) {
max_pfn = MAX_NONPAE_PFN;
printk(KERN_WARNING "Warning
Andrew Lyon wrote:
Could this also cause a system to be unstable? my abit athlon64 at
work will not run x64 with more than 1gb ram, and i have a colo server
with supermicro & 2 x dual core xeons that will not run with more than
2gb.
Both systems have long uptimes but if i add ram they crash with
On 6/6/07, H. Peter Anvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
>
> Seems like an improvement to me. To fully explain how it could be 3 or
> 3.5 or 3.25 or who knows how many GB you can actually use without PAE
> would probably require writing a small novel. Certainly talking about
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
>
> Seems like an improvement to me. To fully explain how it could be 3 or
> 3.5 or 3.25 or who knows how many GB you can actually use without PAE
> would probably require writing a small novel. Certainly talking about
> address space instead of amounts of physical memory
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 02:12:22PM +0200, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> > Change the description of CONFIG_*HIGHMEM* to reflect "lost" memory due to
> > PCI space and the existence of the NX flag.
> >
> > Signed-Off-By: Bodo Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > ---
> > I made this quic
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 02:12:22PM +0200, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> Change the description of CONFIG_*HIGHMEM* to reflect "lost" memory due to
> PCI space and the existence of the NX flag.
>
> Signed-Off-By: Bodo Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
> I made this quick patch using the information from LKM
Change the description of CONFIG_*HIGHMEM* to reflect "lost" memory due to
PCI space and the existence of the NX flag.
Signed-Off-By: Bodo Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
I made this quick patch using the information from LKML as I remembered
it. Please verify.
--- 2.6.21/arch/i386/Kconfig.ori
11 matches
Mail list logo
