Re: [expert] 128 mb mem
Actually thats not true at all. For example, I used to run SuSE 5.1 and had to add the append statement into my lilo.conf to see >64M of ram. Btw, you DON'T enable the OS/2 option, since that's specific to the OS/2 operating system. ;) After upgrading to SuSE 5.3 > I didn't need the append option in lilo.conf, nor RH 6.x or Mandrake 6.1. I upgraded the hardware recently to a Asus MB, (last summer/fall) and still no problems. Sometimes, an older SCSI card can do odd things also..., I can't recall exactly what it was, but it had something to do the a 16MB memory limit with direct DMA. (?) This was back in my OS/2 days. (good os btw) Regards, Dana On Thu, 03 Feb 2000, you wrote: > Well, Jean-Louis, > It happend that the box has a brand new ASUS board (BIOS 11/99) > If I will set the BIOS for OS/2 I am getting only 14M. Go figure!! > Again I think that thre is something wrong with the code itself - there > are too many people complainig about the same thing - LINUX IS NOT ABLLE > TO RECOGNIZE MORE THAN 64M > It looks like the intruction code is made to recognize only a 16Bit > integer.
RE: [expert] 128 mb mem
What they are trying to say, it's not LM or Linux that's at fault. Linux politely asks the BIOS how much memory and it got an answer. It wasn't right, but it got an answer. some other OS's ask in a different way and get the right answer more often. Linux is not a very mature OS from my point of view and there is a lot of strange hardware out there and it's not 100% compatible with it. It's really a retorical question, but who is at fault, Linux or hardware when it gets a wrong answer? It used to be a big problem for many OS's. They have been around for a long time and have figured out the hardware side of it, but then most of them are commerical OS's also. Lyle -Original Message- From: Adrian Saidac [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 8:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [expert] 128 mb mem I agree with all of you flame or not. I really need an answer not a status of other systems. Given the fact that Red Hat/Mandrake is keeping a long silence about this make me believe that there is a problem somewhere. Why is showing only on certain systems - THAT'S the mystery!! Civileme wrote: > > John Aldrich wrote: > > > On Thu, 03 Feb 2000, you wrote: > > > Well, Jean-Louis, > > > It happend that the box has a brand new ASUS board (BIOS 11/99) > > > If I will set the BIOS for OS/2 I am getting only 14M. Go figure!! > > > Again I think that thre is something wrong with the code itself - there > > > are too many people complainig about the same thing - LINUX IS NOT ABLLE > > > TO RECOGNIZE MORE THAN 64M > > > It looks like the intruction code is made to recognize only a 16Bit > > > integer. > > > > > Wrong. I've got 192 megs of ram here and I didn't do ANYTHING to > > make it see all that RAM. One thing I recall reading is that > > overclocking will cause Linux to see less than maximum RAM. If you're > > overclocking, try setting it back to the "real" clock speed and see > > what it reports. > > Here's the output of my "free" command: > > total used free sharedbuffers cached > > Mem:192848 181820 11028 55492 22740 79616 > > -/+ buffers/cache: 79464 113384 > > Swap: 102744 5708 97036 > > > > Keep in mind that I'm running two instances of RC5DES and an instance > > of SETI@HOME on this machine at all times... > > John > > H. I think the conclusion about a halfword for memory size might be > premature. > > Set the BIOS for OS/2 and you have made a HOLE in the memory picture and all > the BIOS will report is 15M--the memory hole is 15M to 16M. Why are you > getting 14? Most likely your video BIOS shadowing is enabled, effectively > eliminating the first M from the picture. > > I have 17 machines with either 128M(15) or 256M(2) and I never used the > append "mem=xyzM" on any of then. One is running Caldera OpenLinux 2.3, 15 > are running LM 6.1 (Helios) and one is running LM 6.0 (Venus) UPtimes as > long as 96 days (on the server) exist now, and some of the others have been > on since I implemented Helios on them, 12-63 days. > > Now at home I have a couple of those cheapie boards that have the AGP and the > sound built-in and each of them uses 8M of main for the video mem. Linux > reports 120M/119M on them, which is correct. Again, no special settings. > > Here is the output of free > total used free > shared buffers cached > Mem: 119840 63836 56004 > 45456 290033768 > -/+ buffers/cache 2716892672 > Swap: 1686720 168672 > > So look at the BIOS and erase the memory hole at 15M and change the setting > for OS/2 for >64M and Linux will see your memory too. > > Civileme > > -- > experimentation involving more than 500 trials with an > ordinary slice of bread and a tablespoon of peanut butter > has determined that the probability a random toss will > land sticky side down (SSD) is approximately .98
Re: [expert] 128 mb mem
Adrian Saidac wrote: > I agree with all of you flame or not. > I really need an answer not a status of other systems. > Given the fact that Red Hat/Mandrake is keeping a long silence about > this make me believe that there is a problem somewhere. Why is showing > only on certain systems - THAT'S the mystery!! > Well, I don't and won't use ABIT boards, so it is unlikely I will be able to reproduce your error EXCEPT: I set this system for OS/2 My 119M shrunk to 63 I activated the memory hole at 15-16M and my memory magically shrunk to 14M! Look at your BIOS. Hit DEL when it is starting up, check the menus out for these rather standard settings, OR add append mem="M" to /etc/lilo.conf and as root # /sbin/lilo # shutdown -r now And if you cannot understand that it is NOT safe for an OS to test the memory directly, then you probably have never heard of memory-mapped I/O or shadowing, nor do you realize that linux runs on systems that routinely do those things consider that m68klinux may not be able to utilize the same binaries, but it can deal with the same source, and so can linuxppc, alpha linux, etc. Your conjecture that linux cannot handle more that 64M is ... perhaps a leap made without extensive knowledge. And yes I have a reason I don't use ABIT boards. I have never implemented one in linux without a hassle. I decided I would rather not live with the choices made by the ABIT design engineers, which impress me as one kludge on top of another. YMMV, of course. Civileme
Re: [expert] 128 mb mem
I agree with all of you flame or not. I really need an answer not a status of other systems. Given the fact that Red Hat/Mandrake is keeping a long silence about this make me believe that there is a problem somewhere. Why is showing only on certain systems - THAT'S the mystery!! Civileme wrote: > > John Aldrich wrote: > > > On Thu, 03 Feb 2000, you wrote: > > > Well, Jean-Louis, > > > It happend that the box has a brand new ASUS board (BIOS 11/99) > > > If I will set the BIOS for OS/2 I am getting only 14M. Go figure!! > > > Again I think that thre is something wrong with the code itself - there > > > are too many people complainig about the same thing - LINUX IS NOT ABLLE > > > TO RECOGNIZE MORE THAN 64M > > > It looks like the intruction code is made to recognize only a 16Bit > > > integer. > > > > > Wrong. I've got 192 megs of ram here and I didn't do ANYTHING to > > make it see all that RAM. One thing I recall reading is that > > overclocking will cause Linux to see less than maximum RAM. If you're > > overclocking, try setting it back to the "real" clock speed and see > > what it reports. > > Here's the output of my "free" command: > > total used free sharedbuffers cached > > Mem:192848 181820 11028 55492 22740 79616 > > -/+ buffers/cache: 79464 113384 > > Swap: 102744 5708 97036 > > > > Keep in mind that I'm running two instances of RC5DES and an instance > > of SETI@HOME on this machine at all times... > > John > > H. I think the conclusion about a halfword for memory size might be > premature. > > Set the BIOS for OS/2 and you have made a HOLE in the memory picture and all > the BIOS will report is 15M--the memory hole is 15M to 16M. Why are you > getting 14? Most likely your video BIOS shadowing is enabled, effectively > eliminating the first M from the picture. > > I have 17 machines with either 128M(15) or 256M(2) and I never used the > append "mem=xyzM" on any of then. One is running Caldera OpenLinux 2.3, 15 > are running LM 6.1 (Helios) and one is running LM 6.0 (Venus) UPtimes as > long as 96 days (on the server) exist now, and some of the others have been > on since I implemented Helios on them, 12-63 days. > > Now at home I have a couple of those cheapie boards that have the AGP and the > sound built-in and each of them uses 8M of main for the video mem. Linux > reports 120M/119M on them, which is correct. Again, no special settings. > > Here is the output of free > total used free > shared buffers cached > Mem: 119840 63836 56004 > 45456 290033768 > -/+ buffers/cache 2716892672 > Swap: 1686720 168672 > > So look at the BIOS and erase the memory hole at 15M and change the setting > for OS/2 for >64M and Linux will see your memory too. > > Civileme > > -- > experimentation involving more than 500 trials with an > ordinary slice of bread and a tablespoon of peanut butter > has determined that the probability a random toss will > land sticky side down (SSD) is approximately .98
RE: [expert] 128 mb mem
> Wrong. I've got 192 megs of ram here and I didn't do ANYTHING to > make it see all that RAM. Same here, 196Mb and Mandrake sees the whole lot no probs
Re: [expert] 128 mb mem
On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Adrian Saidac wrote: > Well, Jean-Louis, > It happend that the box has a brand new ASUS board (BIOS 11/99) > If I will set the BIOS for OS/2 I am getting only 14M. Go figure!! > Again I think that thre is something wrong with the code itself - there > are too many people complainig about the same thing - LINUX IS NOT ABLLE > TO RECOGNIZE MORE THAN 64M > It looks like the intruction code is made to recognize only a 16Bit > integer. > > Hmmm... funny. Can I have some of what you're smoking, please? Looks like good stuff. I'm running a K6/3-450 on an Asus P5A with a single 128mb DIMM in place. Here's my /proc/meminfo: total:used:free: shared: buffers: cached: Mem: 130850816 104624128 26226688 32210944 3489792 41967616 Swap: 131567616 57417728 74149888 MemTotal:127784 kB MemFree: 25612 kB MemShared:31456 kB Buffers: 3408 kB Cached: 40984 kB BigTotal: 0 kB BigFree: 0 kB SwapTotal: 128484 kB SwapFree: 72412 kB Now, care to repeat that statement without your foot in your mouth? - Rich Clark Sign the petition at http://www.libranet.com/petition.html Help bring us more Linux Drivers
Re: [expert] 128 mb mem
On Wed, 02 Feb 2000, you wrote: > I heard that mandrake needs line: append="mem=128M" > in to /etc/lilo.conf if computer haves more than 64mb. > I have 128mb mem and i dont have that line in my conf > but still "top" shows that i have 128mb of mem + swap ? > Don't sweat it. Only CERTAIN systems need that. It's somewhat motherboard specific... John
Re: [expert] 128 mb mem
Adrian Saidac wrote: > > Well, Jean-Louis, > It happend that the box has a brand new ASUS board (BIOS 11/99) > If I will set the BIOS for OS/2 I am getting only 14M. Go figure!! So the problem _does_ come from the BIOS !!! (and/or _possibly_ the RAM circuitry itself, especially if the system is overclocked :-) The right question, now, is: do you _need_ the OS/2 setting ??? > Again I think that thre is something wrong with the code itself - there > are too many people complainig about the same thing - LINUX IS NOT ABLLE > TO RECOGNIZE MORE THAN 64M As I said before, linux _does not attempt_ (AFAIK) to check itself the amount of memory, because it might hang the machine on some configs. Instead it just asks the BIOS. Now, is your BIOS _ever_ correctly reporting the memory that you have ??? -- Jean-Louis Debert[EMAIL PROTECTED] 74 Annemasse France old Linux fan
Re: [expert] 128 mb mem
Lyle wrote: > > I am having a minor/major problem. I have an older Compaq Proliant 2000 > with 64 meg of ram and it's not accepting the extra ram and I have added > append="mem=64M" and append="63M" to /etc/lilo.conf and it doesn't seem to > take. Is this a problem with Compaq? Or where do you add the line in > lilo.conf or does it matter or?? If I understand you well, you have 128MB total, right ? Well the append line must reference the TOTAL memory, not the "extra" (relative to 64Mb). So say: append="mem=128m" -- Jean-Louis Debert[EMAIL PROTECTED] 74 Annemasse France old Linux fan
Re: [expert] 128 mb mem
John Aldrich wrote: > On Thu, 03 Feb 2000, you wrote: > > Well, Jean-Louis, > > It happend that the box has a brand new ASUS board (BIOS 11/99) > > If I will set the BIOS for OS/2 I am getting only 14M. Go figure!! > > Again I think that thre is something wrong with the code itself - there > > are too many people complainig about the same thing - LINUX IS NOT ABLLE > > TO RECOGNIZE MORE THAN 64M > > It looks like the intruction code is made to recognize only a 16Bit > > integer. > > > Wrong. I've got 192 megs of ram here and I didn't do ANYTHING to > make it see all that RAM. One thing I recall reading is that > overclocking will cause Linux to see less than maximum RAM. If you're > overclocking, try setting it back to the "real" clock speed and see > what it reports. > Here's the output of my "free" command: > total used free sharedbuffers cached > Mem:192848 181820 11028 55492 22740 79616 > -/+ buffers/cache: 79464 113384 > Swap: 102744 5708 97036 > > Keep in mind that I'm running two instances of RC5DES and an instance > of SETI@HOME on this machine at all times... > John H. I think the conclusion about a halfword for memory size might be premature. Set the BIOS for OS/2 and you have made a HOLE in the memory picture and all the BIOS will report is 15M--the memory hole is 15M to 16M. Why are you getting 14? Most likely your video BIOS shadowing is enabled, effectively eliminating the first M from the picture. I have 17 machines with either 128M(15) or 256M(2) and I never used the append "mem=xyzM" on any of then. One is running Caldera OpenLinux 2.3, 15 are running LM 6.1 (Helios) and one is running LM 6.0 (Venus) UPtimes as long as 96 days (on the server) exist now, and some of the others have been on since I implemented Helios on them, 12-63 days. Now at home I have a couple of those cheapie boards that have the AGP and the sound built-in and each of them uses 8M of main for the video mem. Linux reports 120M/119M on them, which is correct. Again, no special settings. Here is the output of free total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 119840 63836 56004 45456 290033768 -/+ buffers/cache 2716892672 Swap: 1686720 168672 So look at the BIOS and erase the memory hole at 15M and change the setting for OS/2 for >64M and Linux will see your memory too. Civileme -- experimentation involving more than 500 trials with an ordinary slice of bread and a tablespoon of peanut butter has determined that the probability a random toss will land sticky side down (SSD) is approximately .98
Re: [expert] 128 mb mem
On Thu, 03 Feb 2000, you wrote: > OK so if it is a new machine (in this case is a 11/99 BIOS - ABIT board, > the addition to the lilo.config is not required > This is common knowledge - my question is HOW I CAN MAKE THIS LINUX crap > to recognize more than 64M. > Add the line, even if it's a "new" BIOS. Also make sure you have the latest BIOS possible. Try it at the lilo command as follows: LILO: linux append="mem=128M" and it SHOULD work. If it does, just add it to your /etc/lilo.conf. I have yet to read of anywhere it did NOT work. I'm sure there are extreme cases where it won't work, but I don't recall hearing of any. Heck, it even works when you O/C the processor and it stops reporting the correct RAM automagically... John
Re: [expert] 128 mb mem
On Thu, 03 Feb 2000, you wrote: > Well, Jean-Louis, > It happend that the box has a brand new ASUS board (BIOS 11/99) > If I will set the BIOS for OS/2 I am getting only 14M. Go figure!! > Again I think that thre is something wrong with the code itself - there > are too many people complainig about the same thing - LINUX IS NOT ABLLE > TO RECOGNIZE MORE THAN 64M > It looks like the intruction code is made to recognize only a 16Bit > integer. > Oh, one other thing...here's my /etc/lilo.conf. No "append" statements at all: default=linux prompt timeout=60 boot=/dev/hda map=/boot/map image=/boot/vmlinuz-2.2.12-up label=linux root=/dev/hda5 read-only image=/boot/vmlinuz-2.2.12 label=smp root=/dev/hda5 read-only
Re: [expert] 128 mb mem
On Thu, 03 Feb 2000, you wrote: > Well, Jean-Louis, > It happend that the box has a brand new ASUS board (BIOS 11/99) > If I will set the BIOS for OS/2 I am getting only 14M. Go figure!! > Again I think that thre is something wrong with the code itself - there > are too many people complainig about the same thing - LINUX IS NOT ABLLE > TO RECOGNIZE MORE THAN 64M > It looks like the intruction code is made to recognize only a 16Bit > integer. > Wrong. I've got 192 megs of ram here and I didn't do ANYTHING to make it see all that RAM. One thing I recall reading is that overclocking will cause Linux to see less than maximum RAM. If you're overclocking, try setting it back to the "real" clock speed and see what it reports. Here's the output of my "free" command: total used free sharedbuffers cached Mem:192848 181820 11028 55492 22740 79616 -/+ buffers/cache: 79464 113384 Swap: 102744 5708 97036 Keep in mind that I'm running two instances of RC5DES and an instance of SETI@HOME on this machine at all times... John
Re: [expert] 128 mb mem
OK so if it is a new machine (in this case is a 11/99 BIOS - ABIT board, the addition to the lilo.config is not required This is common knowledge - my question is HOW I CAN MAKE THIS LINUX crap to recognize more than 64M. Adrian Saidac wrote: > > If does not need it why can see no more than 64M > UNIX originally was designed to take advantege of RAM memory (HDs were > too expensive back then) > The more RAM the better the performance - there is something really > wrong with Linux if you can not use more than 64M > > Wojtek Piecek wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 12:53:36PM +0200, Lasse Kristian Gustafsson wrote: > > > > > I heard that mandrake needs line: append="mem=128M" > > > in to /etc/lilo.conf if computer haves more than 64mb. > > > I have 128mb mem and i dont have that line in my conf > > > but still "top" shows that i have 128mb of mem + swap ? > > > > Mandrake (here: kernel) need that line, if you have old (or very old) > > motherboard, which can't correctly report memory size. > > > > New machines don't need this line. > > > > -- > > > > --w
Re: [expert] 128 mb mem
Well, Jean-Louis, It happend that the box has a brand new ASUS board (BIOS 11/99) If I will set the BIOS for OS/2 I am getting only 14M. Go figure!! Again I think that thre is something wrong with the code itself - there are too many people complainig about the same thing - LINUX IS NOT ABLLE TO RECOGNIZE MORE THAN 64M It looks like the intruction code is made to recognize only a 16Bit integer. Jean-Louis Debert wrote: > > Adrian Saidac wrote: > > If does not need it why can see no more than 64M > > UNIX originally was designed to take advantege of RAM memory (HDs were > > too expensive back then) > > The more RAM the better the performance - there is something really > > wrong with Linux if you can not use more than 64M > > It has _nothing_ to do with linux itself: linux has no _safe_ way > to know the memory size, except to ask the BIOS (when I say _safe_ > I mean, not likely to hang the machine). > So, if you have an older BIOS that doesn't know how to report more > than 64Mb, then you have to use the "mem=" command line parameter. > > -- > Jean-Louis Debert[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 74 Annemasse France > old Linux fan
RE: [expert] 128 mb mem
On Thu, 03 Feb 2000, you wrote: > I am having a minor/major problem. I have an older Compaq Proliant 2000 > with 64 meg of ram and it's not accepting the extra ram and I have added > append="mem=64M" and append="63M" to /etc/lilo.conf and it doesn't seem to > take. Is this a problem with Compaq? Or where do you add the line in > lilo.conf or does it matter or?? > Did you remember to re-run /sbin/lilo afterwards? You HAVE to re-run lilo after modifying the /etc/lilo.conf in order to "write" the changes to the partition table. John
RE: [expert] 128 mb mem
I am having a minor/major problem. I have an older Compaq Proliant 2000 with 64 meg of ram and it's not accepting the extra ram and I have added append="mem=64M" and append="63M" to /etc/lilo.conf and it doesn't seem to take. Is this a problem with Compaq? Or where do you add the line in lilo.conf or does it matter or?? Thanks, Lyle -Original Message- From: Jean-Louis Debert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 12:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [expert] 128 mb mem Adrian Saidac wrote: > If does not need it why can see no more than 64M > UNIX originally was designed to take advantege of RAM memory (HDs were > too expensive back then) > The more RAM the better the performance - there is something really > wrong with Linux if you can not use more than 64M It has _nothing_ to do with linux itself: linux has no _safe_ way to know the memory size, except to ask the BIOS (when I say _safe_ I mean, not likely to hang the machine). So, if you have an older BIOS that doesn't know how to report more than 64Mb, then you have to use the "mem=" command line parameter. -- Jean-Louis Debert[EMAIL PROTECTED] 74 Annemasse France old Linux fan
Re: [expert] 128 mb mem
Adrian Saidac wrote: > If does not need it why can see no more than 64M > UNIX originally was designed to take advantege of RAM memory (HDs were > too expensive back then) > The more RAM the better the performance - there is something really > wrong with Linux if you can not use more than 64M It has _nothing_ to do with linux itself: linux has no _safe_ way to know the memory size, except to ask the BIOS (when I say _safe_ I mean, not likely to hang the machine). So, if you have an older BIOS that doesn't know how to report more than 64Mb, then you have to use the "mem=" command line parameter. -- Jean-Louis Debert[EMAIL PROTECTED] 74 Annemasse France old Linux fan
Re: [expert] 128 mb mem
Adrian Saidac wrote: > > If does not need it why can see no more than 64M Did you read the message you are replying to? It never said Linux can't see no more than 64. It said, if you have an old BIOS (mobo) which cannot tell more than 64 to the OS, then _you_ have to tell the OS. > The more RAM the better the performance - there is something really > wrong with Linux if you can not use more than 64M Huh? Who said Linux can't use more than 64? wobo (running Linux with 256 M) -- GPG Fingerprint 519E 2627 FE60 91F5 32AA 6862 CE9D 800A 3876 EF13 -- Linux Mandrake's Home: http://www.linux-mandrake.com ## LLaP (Linux Lovers are Perfect!) #
Re: [expert] 128 mb mem
If does not need it why can see no more than 64M UNIX originally was designed to take advantege of RAM memory (HDs were too expensive back then) The more RAM the better the performance - there is something really wrong with Linux if you can not use more than 64M Wojtek Piecek wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 12:53:36PM +0200, Lasse Kristian Gustafsson wrote: > > > I heard that mandrake needs line: append="mem=128M" > > in to /etc/lilo.conf if computer haves more than 64mb. > > I have 128mb mem and i dont have that line in my conf > > but still "top" shows that i have 128mb of mem + swap ? > > Mandrake (here: kernel) need that line, if you have old (or very old) > motherboard, which can't correctly report memory size. > > New machines don't need this line. > > -- > > --w
Re: [expert] 128 mb mem
Lasse Kristian Gustafsson wrote: > I heard that mandrake needs line: append="mem=128M" > in to /etc/lilo.conf if computer haves more than 64mb. > I have 128mb mem and i dont have that line in my conf > but still "top" shows that i have 128mb of mem + swap ? > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> It is dependent on the BIOS and its settings. If, for example, the memory hole at 15M to 16M is activated, then you DO need it. If your BIOS is set for OS/2, then you will need it. Civileme
Re: [expert] 128 mb mem
sometimes you have to use append "mem=127M" because 1 meg disappears into the video shadow. We had this problem until we dropped it to 127 meg. then it recognized the memory On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Lasse Kristian Gustafsson wrote: > I heard that mandrake needs line: append="mem=128M" > in to /etc/lilo.conf if computer haves more than 64mb. > I have 128mb mem and i dont have that line in my conf > but still "top" shows that i have 128mb of mem + swap ? > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >
RE: [expert] 128 mb mem
>> I heard that mandrake needs line: append="mem=128M" >> in to /etc/lilo.conf if computer haves more than 64mb. >> I have 128mb mem and i dont have that line in my conf >> but still "top" shows that i have 128mb of mem + swap ? > >I haven't got this line either and I have 196Mb RAM. Seems to work ok >here! My guess is you can ignore it. Better still, add the line and >try >it, then let us know what happened :) I always thought this was a workaround for certain BIOS/Mainboard combos. Some BIOSes have an option that says Memory Hole At 64 meg, and if disabling this option didn't work, you used this append statement in lilo. If your computer reports all the memory you have, then don't fix what ain't broke. :) Wayne
RE: [expert] 128 mb mem
> I heard that mandrake needs line: append="mem=128M" > in to /etc/lilo.conf if computer haves more than 64mb. > I have 128mb mem and i dont have that line in my conf > but still "top" shows that i have 128mb of mem + swap ? I haven't got this line either and I have 196Mb RAM. Seems to work ok here! My guess is you can ignore it. Better still, add the line and try it, then let us know what happened :) Steve Wright BMS
Re: [expert] 128 mb mem
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 02 Feb 2000, you wrote: > I heard that mandrake needs line: append="mem=128M" > in to /etc/lilo.conf if computer haves more than 64mb. > I have 128mb mem and i dont have that line in my conf > but still "top" shows that i have 128mb of mem + swap ? Me too, I have 96MB on my computer and don't have 'append="mem=XX"' in my lilo.conf. As far as I know in some cases the kernel itself can detect the correct amount of memory installed and in others you have to tell it explicitly. - -- ___ Join the Penguin Family! (o_ (o_ (o_ //\ (/)_ (/)_ V_/_ Free your mind, use LINUX The Penguin Family -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5.2 iQA/AwUBOJgqlQaGw+q4v9WsEQJDbwCgrzYtjt22L0PJiU27xIGsWkyc68MAoMPG zkcSmgSrUcoW0W7o6qtr6gaS =WHa3 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [expert] 128 mb mem
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 12:53:36PM +0200, Lasse Kristian Gustafsson wrote: > I heard that mandrake needs line: append="mem=128M" > in to /etc/lilo.conf if computer haves more than 64mb. > I have 128mb mem and i dont have that line in my conf > but still "top" shows that i have 128mb of mem + swap ? Mandrake (here: kernel) need that line, if you have old (or very old) motherboard, which can't correctly report memory size. New machines don't need this line. -- --w
[expert] 128 mb mem
I heard that mandrake needs line: append="mem=128M" in to /etc/lilo.conf if computer haves more than 64mb. I have 128mb mem and i dont have that line in my conf but still "top" shows that i have 128mb of mem + swap ? <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
