Re: [newbie] Memory wierdness in X? (Was: Increasing swap partition size in 10.0)
Derek Jennings wrote: No you do not need to change any settings for 768M. If you had 1 M of memory you would need to use a different kernel to address the high memory, but you could still use the standard kernel. It would simply not see the high memory. 1 M of memory? I don't want to think of running Linux on anything with that little memory. :-) Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com
Re: [newbie] Memory wierdness in X? (Was: Increasing swap partition size in 10.0)
On Thursday 20 January 2005 13:15, J. David Boyd wrote: > So, last night, after putting in my new memory (thanks all, for the > responses. Alleviated my worries about swap space size), I reboot my > machine. > > Front screen and CMOS report ~768M of memory. LILO starts up, I choose > Linux, everything looks great. > > I press ESC to see the verbose startup report (Mandrake 10.0), and > everything still looks great... > > Until X starts. The background comes up all crosschecked, then it gets > colored blue. Then the icon changes from an X to an arrow pointer. All > like normal so far. > > Then there she sits. > > I ran out of time to try setting mandrake to boot to a shell, rather than > KDE automatically . I'll try that tonight. > > But does anyone know, do any X or KDE window manager settings need to be > changed because I increased the memory in my system? > > Sounds kind of strange, but I was very surprised. > > Thanks for any ideas... > > Dave in Largo, FL No you do not need to change any settings for 768M. If you had 1 M of memory you would need to use a different kernel to address the high memory, but you could still use the standard kernel. It would simply not see the high memory. Your problem looks like a memory fault. Try reseating the memory and check your BIOS settings to be sure they match the spec of your new memory. If that does not help, before logging on hit Ctl+Alt+F1 to get a text console. Log in as root, and install memtest86+ with 'urpmi memtest86+' Then reboot with 'shutdown -r now' At your lilo prompt you will see a new entry to test your memory. Select that and let it run. You should get **zero** memory errors. derek -- www.jennings.homelinux.net http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com
Re: [newbie] Memory wierdness in X? (Was: Increasing swap partition size in 10.0)
J. David Boyd wrote: So, last night, after putting in my new memory (thanks all, for the responses. Alleviated my worries about swap space size), I reboot my machine. Front screen and CMOS report ~768M of memory. LILO starts up, I choose Linux, everything looks great. I press ESC to see the verbose startup report (Mandrake 10.0), and everything still looks great... Until X starts. The background comes up all crosschecked, then it gets colored blue. Then the icon changes from an X to an arrow pointer. All like normal so far. Then there she sits. I ran out of time to try setting mandrake to boot to a shell, rather than KDE automatically . I'll try that tonight. But does anyone know, do any X or KDE window manager settings need to be changed because I increased the memory in my system? Sounds kind of strange, but I was very surprised. Thanks for any ideas... Dave in Largo, FL No, nothing should have to be changed when you put in more memory. The only exceptions to that is if you have a machine with a BIOS that doesn't report the correct amount of memory to the kernel. Then you have edit /etc/lilo.conf to reflect the new amount of memory. But you would know about that already, because you would have needed mem= as part of the append line to make the system work correctly anyway. The other exception is if you drasticly increase the memory, (2GB+?) you would have to change to one of the large memory kernels. An easy way to check this in your case is when X gets stuck, hit "Ctrl-Alt-F1", log in, and run "free". It should show just under 768M of total memory. (Actual memory minus what the kernel uses.) One thing I like to do when ever I install new memory is let the machine run mtest86 for a while before putting it into service. 24 to 48 hours is great, but even overnight helps. It lets you spot problems with the memory early. According to some reports I have read, it also "burns in" the new memory. I don't know if that is true, but I have not had any memory that passes the 48 hour test fail on me... (Unless you count the 256k IC that that got steped on. :-( Mikkel Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com
[newbie] Memory wierdness in X? (Was: Increasing swap partition size in 10.0)
So, last night, after putting in my new memory (thanks all, for the responses. Alleviated my worries about swap space size), I reboot my machine. Front screen and CMOS report ~768M of memory. LILO starts up, I choose Linux, everything looks great. I press ESC to see the verbose startup report (Mandrake 10.0), and everything still looks great... Until X starts. The background comes up all crosschecked, then it gets colored blue. Then the icon changes from an X to an arrow pointer. All like normal so far. Then there she sits. I ran out of time to try setting mandrake to boot to a shell, rather than KDE automatically . I'll try that tonight. But does anyone know, do any X or KDE window manager settings need to be changed because I increased the memory in my system? Sounds kind of strange, but I was very surprised. Thanks for any ideas... Dave in Largo, FL Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com
Re: [newbie] Memory filling up on 9.2?
On Thursday 11 Nov 2004 19:07, Stephen Kühn wrote: > On Fri, 2004-11-12 at 06:19, Q.H. Wang wrote: > > Yeah - some folks try to assign their understanding of how *nix uses > it's memory to that of how MSDOS/MS Windows uses it's memory - two > different dogs altogether. > I remember being entirely shocked the first time I saw memory usage growing steadily in TOP. It's alarming until someone explains it to you - we all have too many memories of what lack of memory does to windows ;-) Anne -- Registered Linux User No.293302 Have you visited http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org yet? Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com
Re: [newbie] Memory filling up on 9.2?
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 06:07:23 +1100 Stephen Kühn disseminated the following: > > > Linux does not like idle memory, so when it sees some free it uses it, but > > > > > > if it is needed for another app it will free it up for the higher priority > > > > > > app. It is not a problem and should cause no slowdowns or hangs. > > > > I like this one. Some times ago I bought a 512 MB memory chip for my desktop > > > > PC already with 256 MB memory running MDK 9.1. Before I turned on it I > > tought > > that I'd have quite a lot free memory. But unluckily, I just found I had > > around 200 MB free memory (Without this new 512 MB chip, I remembered the > > free memory is over 100 MB then). But when I run some matlab program, it > > used over 500 MB memory which is what I needed. So I don't worry too much > > about it now. > > > > Q.H. > > Yeah - some folks try to assign their understanding of how *nix uses > it's memory to that of how MSDOS/MS Windows uses it's memory - two > different dogs altogether. Ya, one's a misbegotten ugly mutt, doesn't obey commands, pisses all over your carpet, and frequently gets a serious infection leading to hefty vet bills. -- JoeHill / RLU #282046 / www.freeyourmachine.org 14:13:47 up 99 days, 15:05, 6 users, load average: 1.50, 1.41, 1.41 +++ "He who does not put out his money at interest, and does not take a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things shall never be moved." -- Psalm 15 Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com
Re: [newbie] Memory filling up on 9.2?
On Fri, 2004-11-12 at 06:19, Q.H. Wang wrote: > > Linux does not like idle memory, so when it sees some free it uses it, but > > if it is needed for another app it will free it up for the higher priority > > app. It is not a problem and should cause no slowdowns or hangs. > > I like this one. Some times ago I bought a 512 MB memory chip for my desktop > PC already with 256 MB memory running MDK 9.1. Before I turned on it I tought > that I'd have quite a lot free memory. But unluckily, I just found I had > around 200 MB free memory (Without this new 512 MB chip, I remembered the > free memory is over 100 MB then). But when I run some matlab program, it > used over 500 MB memory which is what I needed. So I don't worry too much > about it now. > > Q.H. Yeah - some folks try to assign their understanding of how *nix uses it's memory to that of how MSDOS/MS Windows uses it's memory - two different dogs altogether. -- stephen kuhn mobile: 0410-728-389 illawarra and regional new south wales --- GNU/Linux/OpenSource Solutions and Alternatives 100% Microsoft Free and no viruses Registered Linux User # 267497 Windows: Where do you want to go today? MacOS: Where do you want to be tomorrow? Linux: Are you coming or what? --- Life is too short to be taken seriously. -- Oscar Wilde Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com
Re: [newbie] Memory filling up on 9.2?
> Linux does not like idle memory, so when it sees some free it uses it, but > if it is needed for another app it will free it up for the higher priority > app. It is not a problem and should cause no slowdowns or hangs. I like this one. Some times ago I bought a 512 MB memory chip for my desktop PC already with 256 MB memory running MDK 9.1. Before I turned on it I tought that I'd have quite a lot free memory. But unluckily, I just found I had around 200 MB free memory (Without this new 512 MB chip, I remembered the free memory is over 100 MB then). But when I run some matlab program, it used over 500 MB memory which is what I needed. So I don't worry too much about it now. Q.H. Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com
Re: [newbie] Memory filling up on 9.2?
On Thursday 11 November 2004 12:03 pm, Eric Scott wrote: > Yo; > I've got a Mandrake 9.2 box that I run 24/7 as a http/pop3/ftp server. As > time passes the available memory steadily goes down. For example: I > rebooted it yesterday morning and KDE System Guard told me it had ~170 MB > of free memory. Now KDE System Guard tells me it has ~50 MB of free > memory... any clues as to what's filling it up? > Thanx, > SigmaChi Hey, how ya doin. The memory thing is a FAQ for linux. Linux does not like idle memory, so when it sees some free it uses it, but if it is needed for another app it will free it up for the higher priority app. It is not a problem and should cause no slowdowns or hangs. Simplistic explanation, but I am a simple minded.. eer, no, simple kinda guy. : ) -- Dennis M. linux user #180842 Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com
[newbie] Memory filling up on 9.2?
Yo; I've got a Mandrake 9.2 box that I run 24/7 as a http/pop3/ftp server. As time passes the available memory steadily goes down. For example: I rebooted it yesterday morning and KDE System Guard told me it had ~170 MB of free memory. Now KDE System Guard tells me it has ~50 MB of free memory... any clues as to what's filling it up? Thanx, SigmaChi -- Registered Linux user #366862 This message was sent from a Microsoft-Free 750MHz Athlon system running SuSE Linux 9.1 (Kernel 2.6.5), multi-booted with RedHat 8.0 (Kernel 2.4.18; can't get Fedora to work!) and Debian 3.0 (Kernel 2.2.20). "Failure is not an option with Microsoft; it's bundled with the software!" "A Linux Only area Happy bug hunting M$ clan, The time is here to FORGET that M$ Corp ever existed the world does not NEED M$ Corp the world has NO USE for M$ Corp it is time to END M$ Corp" -snipped from the signature of Peter Nikolic Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com
Re: [newbie] Memory clog on 9.2?
On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 05:36, Eric Scott wrote: > Yo; > I've got a Mandrake 9.2 box that I use as a web server. On my SuSE box at > home I leave KDE system guard open 24/7 connected to the server via ssh, all > that fun stuff. I've noticed that as the server is on for long periods of > time, the ammount of free memory goes down, at roughly 3MB/hour. What would > be filling it up? I wouldn't give it much though, 'cept this is a server, > and at this rate two days of up time and I'm spilling over into SWAP, which > would slow it down too much for my liking. > Any help? > Thanx, >SigmaChi How many instances of Apache are running? What version of Apache are you running? Have you updated the kernel and other system software? Have you considered "load balancing" - putting the SWAP and /tmp and /var on a completely different physical drive? Have you turned off all unnecessary services so that the server is JUST a webserver? -- stephen kuhn mobile: 0410-728-389 illawarra and regional new south wales --- GNU/Linux/OpenSource Solutions and Alternatives 100% Microsoft Free and no viruses Registered Linux User # 267497 Windows: Where do you want to go today? MacOS: Where do you want to be tomorrow? Linux: Are you coming or what? --- It is impossible for an optimist to be pleasantly surprised. Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com
Re: [newbie] Memory clog on 9.2?
Eric Scott wrote: Yo; I've got a Mandrake 9.2 box that I use as a web server. On my SuSE box at home I leave KDE system guard open 24/7 connected to the server via ssh, all that fun stuff. I've noticed that as the server is on for long periods of time, the ammount of free memory goes down, at roughly 3MB/hour. What would be filling it up? I wouldn't give it much though, 'cept this is a server, and at this rate two days of up time and I'm spilling over into SWAP, which would slow it down too much for my liking. Any help? Thanx, SigmaChi Dumb question - how are you determining the amound of free memory? If you are going by the first line of the free command, then you probably do not have anything to worry about. A Linux machine will use up just about all of the free memory for buffers and disk cache. It will release this memory when needed by programs. This is normal. It is also normaly for Linux to swap out waiting programs during high memory demand, and leave them swapped out untill they are needed again. So you can have swap spaced used, even though there is plenty of memory that could be used to run programs. Look at the second line of the free command to determine if you are running out of memory. The number under the free column is how much memory you have free for running programs. Remember, "free" memory is wasted memory. Linux likes to use all fo the memory in the system to make things run faster... Mikkel -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup! Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com
[newbie] Memory clog on 9.2?
Yo; I've got a Mandrake 9.2 box that I use as a web server. On my SuSE box at home I leave KDE system guard open 24/7 connected to the server via ssh, all that fun stuff. I've noticed that as the server is on for long periods of time, the ammount of free memory goes down, at roughly 3MB/hour. What would be filling it up? I wouldn't give it much though, 'cept this is a server, and at this rate two days of up time and I'm spilling over into SWAP, which would slow it down too much for my liking. Any help? Thanx, SigmaChi -- Registered Linux user #366862 Not that you care, but this message was sent from a 750MHz Athlon system running SuSE Linux 9.1 (Kernal 2.6.5) and KMail 1.62. I aslo run Red Hat Linux 8.0 (Kernal 2.4.18), Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 (Kernal 2.2.20), Mandrake Linux 9.2 (Kernal 2.4.22), and YellowDog Linux 3.0 (Kernal 2.4.20) on various systems and architectures for various reasons. Yeah, and there's a old Mac OS in there somewhere that I use as a bootloader for Linux, and a Windows XP box used as a router for my Linux-based network, but they don't count, 'cuz they aren't "real" OS's. Who me? Biased? Nah! "Failure is not an option with Microsoft; it's bundled with the software!" Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com
[newbie] Memory card reader shows carbage
I have a USB cardreader which is mounted automatically on Mandrake 9.2 as /mnt/hd This happens if I plug in the card reader with a multi-media card in it. However when I open de mount I see the card reader reading, red light is flashing, and see many entries with just carbage. When I use the same cardreader on SuSE 8.2 it works just fine. What can be the problem ? -- John Zoetebier Web site: http://www.transparent.co.nz Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com
[newbie] Memory problem when installing from HD
I am trying to install version 9.2 using the HD (hd.img). I have 64MB of RAM. When I tell the installer on the where to find the files I get the message:"you need more memory to perform an installation from a Windows partition". Looking at the log says:"ramdisk is not possible due to low mem!". The site says that 64MB is fine. Any ideas? Any way to bypass this?. Thanks --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 19/01/2004 Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory limit?
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 03:33 pm, civileme wrote: > On Wednesday 26 February 2003 01:31 pm, Tom Brinkman wrote: > > On Wednesday February 26 2003 11:23 am, Seedkum Aladeem wrote: > > > > While there's already 64 bit production machines, that use > > > > gigs of ram, there's also already Linux performance optimized [Deleted] > > just 32 bits to work with. > > > > BTW, I believe filesystems are also governed by the same > > mathematical laws and bits ;) I'm mostly doin some educated guessing > > about all the above, Civileme, Juan, Warly, or Todd probly knows. > > Yep > > 1G requires 30 bits (plus a sign bit) to address properly.. since address > arithmetic should be unsigned, this represents the easiest way to implement > address arithmetic using 32-bit signed arithmetic registers. > > 2G is as high as one is likely to go with 32-bit addressing using signed > arithmetic in the registers, unsigned comes extra, unless the hardware > also supports unsigned arithmetic (the C compiler supports unsigned arith > whether the architecture does or not, which means subroutines to add > subtract multiply and divide unsigned 32 bit numbers if the architecture > does not offer such arithmetic) > > C compilers have target memory models as well, so that the compile is > efficient for the expected runtime environment. This is where the sizing > of 32-bit CPU kernels comes into play as well as the optimizations of the > kernel itself. > > Now the more recent Windows systems supposedly support a file size of 2 > Terabytes... I think that is 2 to the power 41 bytes which indicates a 41 > bit address if unsigned and 42 if signed. 64-bit linices generally address > either 8 or 16 exabytes (2 to the power 63 or 64 bytes), and file sizes are > at least that large, potentially. > > One compiler, xbasic, which works on any 386 using windows or linux with X, > actually offers a 64bit signed fixed-point data type. Some interpreters > offer arbitrary number sizes in fixed point (like the Python BIG=1L). > > Limits are limits only because there are performance hits associated with > size, given the architectures available. > > Civileme As suspected, the memory management performance penalty is due to architectural limitations and not sloppy software. Because the registers used for address employ signed ariithmetic, using more higher order bits or increasing the size of the registers would introduce compatibility issues. AMD will not do that. Seedkum Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory limit?
Fred Schroeder wrote: Thanks for all of the replys, guess I will try to roll my own, sure hope I don't screw this up!! you will seldom screw up if you always back up before you install or modify anything that is working. 'things' will screw up enough on their own. peace out. tc,hago. g . -- think green... save a tree, save a life, save time, save bandwidth, save storage. send email... text/plain - disable pgp/gpg/geek code attachments =+= if you are proud to be an american, then buy "made in america". Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory limit?
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 01:31 pm, Tom Brinkman wrote: > On Wednesday February 26 2003 11:23 am, Seedkum Aladeem wrote: > > > While there's already 64 bit production machines, that use > > > gigs of ram, there's also already Linux performance optimized > > > kernels for them. IIRC, the kernels were ready before the > > > systems were. OTOH, before you'll see 64 bit desktops systems, > > > 512 mb of ram will still be overkill. > > > > Thanx Tom, > > > > This suggests that the performance penalty is brought about because > > of hardware limitations (i.e. CPU architecture) and not > > artificially introduced by sloppy memory management software. This > > suggests that some register somewhere in the CPU is not full 32 > > bits long. I thought 32 bits of address give 4G of address space > > and not 1G. > > > > Maybe AMD should make 32 bit CPUs address the full 4G before going > > to 64 bit CPUs. > > > > > > Seedkum > > Well, you're straining the limits of my ability to explain it > further ... mainly cause I dunno either ;) > > I will say it's not so much "hardware limitations (i.e. CPU > architecture)", but has more to do with mathematics... in the realm > of hexadecimal numbers, and 2's complements, 32 things taken so many > ways (permutations and combinations). > > It's only been a few years since the 'other OS' even graduated > from 16 bit computing, and as I understand M$ isn't there yet. Mostly > due to tryin to support legacy applications. Linux has always been > capable and willin to re-write software. There's been proprietary > UN*X OS's and applications that have long been 64 bit capable. > Hardware design isn't the big problem, user non-acceptance of change, > and willing acceptance of hardware is probly the bigger factor. > > Many might remember the 2000 hoopla that all computers would start > messin up due to not bein able to recognize the difference between > 1900 and 2000 dates. My brief self taught foray into programming (C, > C++) at least aquainted me with the fact that dates were stored as > code numbers (even on M$/DOS OS's) and the real limitation was around > 2037 when 32 bit systems would barf on higher numbers than 32 bit can > address. The 32 bit mathematical limit just runs out of possible > numbers in row and column (matrix) addressing. > > Same goes for memory arrays (ram), altho there are some kludges > that can be employed to get 32 bit kernels further. BUT, that's where > the performance hit comes in. So, at least in my understanding, it's > not an OS or user accepted hardware limit, as much as it's just the > axioms of mathematics at base 16 (hexidecimal), 2's compliment, with > just 32 bits to work with. > > BTW, I believe filesystems are also governed by the same > mathematical laws and bits ;) I'm mostly doin some educated guessing > about all the above, Civileme, Juan, Warly, or Todd probly knows. Yep 1G requires 30 bits (plus a sign bit) to address properly.. since address arithmetic should be unsigned, this represents the easiest way to implement address arithmetic using 32-bit signed arithmetic registers. 2G is as high as one is likely to go with 32-bit addressing using signed arithmetic in the registers, unsigned comes extra, unless the hardware also supports unsigned arithmetic (the C compiler supports unsigned arith whether the architecture does or not, which means subroutines to add subtract multiply and divide unsigned 32 bit numbers if the architecture does not offer such arithmetic) C compilers have target memory models as well, so that the compile is efficient for the expected runtime environment. This is where the sizing of 32-bit CPU kernels comes into play as well as the optimizations of the kernel itself. Now the more recent Windows systems supposedly support a file size of 2 Terabytes... I think that is 2 to the power 41 bytes which indicates a 41 bit address if unsigned and 42 if signed. 64-bit linices generally address either 8 or 16 exabytes (2 to the power 63 or 64 bytes), and file sizes are at least that large, potentially. One compiler, xbasic, which works on any 386 using windows or linux with X, actually offers a 64bit signed fixed-point data type. Some interpreters offer arbitrary number sizes in fixed point (like the Python BIG=1L). Limits are limits only because there are performance hits associated with size, given the architectures available. Civileme Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory limit?
On Wednesday February 26 2003 11:23 am, Seedkum Aladeem wrote: > > While there's already 64 bit production machines, that use > > gigs of ram, there's also already Linux performance optimized > > kernels for them. IIRC, the kernels were ready before the > > systems were. OTOH, before you'll see 64 bit desktops systems, > > 512 mb of ram will still be overkill. > Thanx Tom, > > This suggests that the performance penalty is brought about because > of hardware limitations (i.e. CPU architecture) and not > artificially introduced by sloppy memory management software. This > suggests that some register somewhere in the CPU is not full 32 > bits long. I thought 32 bits of address give 4G of address space > and not 1G. > > Maybe AMD should make 32 bit CPUs address the full 4G before going > to 64 bit CPUs. > > > Seedkum Well, you're straining the limits of my ability to explain it further ... mainly cause I dunno either ;) I will say it's not so much "hardware limitations (i.e. CPU architecture)", but has more to do with mathematics... in the realm of hexadecimal numbers, and 2's complements, 32 things taken so many ways (permutations and combinations). It's only been a few years since the 'other OS' even graduated from 16 bit computing, and as I understand M$ isn't there yet. Mostly due to tryin to support legacy applications. Linux has always been capable and willin to re-write software. There's been proprietary UN*X OS's and applications that have long been 64 bit capable. Hardware design isn't the big problem, user non-acceptance of change, and willing acceptance of hardware is probly the bigger factor. Many might remember the 2000 hoopla that all computers would start messin up due to not bein able to recognize the difference between 1900 and 2000 dates. My brief self taught foray into programming (C, C++) at least aquainted me with the fact that dates were stored as code numbers (even on M$/DOS OS's) and the real limitation was around 2037 when 32 bit systems would barf on higher numbers than 32 bit can address. The 32 bit mathematical limit just runs out of possible numbers in row and column (matrix) addressing. Same goes for memory arrays (ram), altho there are some kludges that can be employed to get 32 bit kernels further. BUT, that's where the performance hit comes in. So, at least in my understanding, it's not an OS or user accepted hardware limit, as much as it's just the axioms of mathematics at base 16 (hexidecimal), 2's compliment, with just 32 bits to work with. BTW, I believe filesystems are also governed by the same mathematical laws and bits ;) I'm mostly doin some educated guessing about all the above, Civileme, Juan, Warly, or Todd probly knows. -- Tom Brinkman Corpus Christi, Texas Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory limit?
On Tuesday February 25 2003 06:43 pm, Seedkum Aladeem wrote: > Pretty soon all the PCs and laptops will need to have more than 1GB > of RAM. What is happening here is probably an early signal for the > kernel developers to revamp memory management. > > Seedkum The linux-kernel people are constantly 'revamping' the kernel. But in order to address memory over about 900 MB's, with a 32 bit system, there's a substantial performance hit to be paid. Solution is to provide a 'desktop' kernel, so that those systems don't suffer the performance hit. While there's already 64 bit production machines, that use gigs of ram, there's also already Linux performance optimized kernels for them. IIRC, the kernels were ready before the systems were. OTOH, before you'll see 64 bit desktops systems, 512 mb of ram will still be overkill. -- Tom Brinkman Corpus Christi, Texas Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory limit?
I stand corrected. I knew everyone would set me straight :-) Thanks to all who set me back on the path of righteousness! ;-) Terry Greg Meyer wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 25 February 2003 02:50 pm, Terry Sheltra wrote: If I recall correctly, you need to purchase the server version of Mandrake. That version will allow memory to be used higher than 1 GB. Of course, if I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will be more than happy to set me straight. ;-) You are correct in that you need the kernel that was intended for servers, but this kernel is included in 9.0 download edition and teh package name if I recall is kernel-enterprise. - -- Greg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+W9yWGu5uuMFlL5MRAguKAJ0Sr6s+esnoPJmM36PlNRTY27AXdwCcD0m5 0rEcD7wQMcH0kYmnvzUtwSI= =cbcY -END PGP SIGNATURE- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com -- Terry Sheltra PC Technician/Asst. Network Administrator University of Virginia School of Architecture 434.982.3047 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Registered Linux User #218330 This email was composed on a 100% Microsoft-free PC Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory limit?
On Tuesday 25 February 2003 02:07 pm, Tom Brinkman wrote: > On Tuesday February 25 2003 01:44 pm, Fred Schroeder wrote: > > Hi, > > I have a Mandrake 9.0 system, in the machine I have put three > > 512Meg chips, so it should have 1,536Meg of Ram. But in the system > > monitor, it only shows 884Meg. What is up? When the machine > > boots, it says it has 1572864 memory, so I think the machine sees > > the memory, but for some reason Linux is not seeing it all. Do I > > need to change some setting on my system? > > You need to either, install the 'enterprise' kernel, or compile > your existing kernel from source and config the 'high memory' option. > There's good reason why this is not in the 'regular' kernel. Kernel > memory management above 1 gig is slower. If you don't just have to > have 1.5 gigs of ram (video editing?), you'd be better off leaving > the regular kernel as is. Yes, the enterprise kernel will see all > your ram with no problem, but your system will be slower. Probly be a > better idea to take one of those 512mb sticks out and sell it ;) Pretty soon all the PCs and laptops will need to have more than 1GB of RAM. What is happening here is probably an early signal for the kernel developers to revamp memory management. Seedkum Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory limit?
On Tuesday 25 February 2003 10:44 am, Fred Schroeder wrote: > Hi, > I have a Mandrake 9.0 system, in the machine I have put three 512Meg chips, > so it should have 1,536Meg of Ram. But in the system monitor, it only > shows 884Meg. What is up? When the machine boots, it says it has 1572864 > memory, so I think the machine sees the memory, but for some reason Linux > is not seeing it all. Do I need to change some setting on my system? > > TIA, > Fred You need to change more than a setting OPen a terminal $ su password: (your rootpassword) # urpmi kernel-enterprise # exit Now boot with kernel-enterprise and you will see the extra memory The kernel is compiled specifically for a certain memory model (up to 1G) and for others you need other compiles. Kernel-enterprise covers 1G-64G Civileme Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory limit?
Tom you make a great point. I run mandrake linux with 256 megs of PC 133 Ram on an Athlon 1600 XP with no problems. So Fred sell all your 512 sticks and go get 256 and you will be fine. Kenneth E. Spress [EMAIL PROTECTED] Interested in a home based buisness? Go Shopping without leaving your house http://www.acnmall.com/sirduron Lastly would you be interested in saving money on products and services you already use if so please contact me. - Original Message - From: "Tom Brinkman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 5:07 PM Subject: Re: [newbie] Memory limit? > On Tuesday February 25 2003 01:44 pm, Fred Schroeder wrote: > > Hi, > > I have a Mandrake 9.0 system, in the machine I have put three > > 512Meg chips, so it should have 1,536Meg of Ram. But in the system > > monitor, it only shows 884Meg. What is up? When the machine > > boots, it says it has 1572864 memory, so I think the machine sees > > the memory, but for some reason Linux is not seeing it all. Do I > > need to change some setting on my system? > > You need to either, install the 'enterprise' kernel, or compile > your existing kernel from source and config the 'high memory' option. > There's good reason why this is not in the 'regular' kernel. Kernel > memory management above 1 gig is slower. If you don't just have to > have 1.5 gigs of ram (video editing?), you'd be better off leaving > the regular kernel as is. Yes, the enterprise kernel will see all > your ram with no problem, but your system will be slower. Probly be a > better idea to take one of those 512mb sticks out and sell it ;) > -- > Tom Brinkman Corpus Christi, Texas > > > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory limit?
On Tuesday February 25 2003 01:44 pm, Fred Schroeder wrote: > Hi, > I have a Mandrake 9.0 system, in the machine I have put three > 512Meg chips, so it should have 1,536Meg of Ram. But in the system > monitor, it only shows 884Meg. What is up? When the machine > boots, it says it has 1572864 memory, so I think the machine sees > the memory, but for some reason Linux is not seeing it all. Do I > need to change some setting on my system? You need to either, install the 'enterprise' kernel, or compile your existing kernel from source and config the 'high memory' option. There's good reason why this is not in the 'regular' kernel. Kernel memory management above 1 gig is slower. If you don't just have to have 1.5 gigs of ram (video editing?), you'd be better off leaving the regular kernel as is. Yes, the enterprise kernel will see all your ram with no problem, but your system will be slower. Probly be a better idea to take one of those 512mb sticks out and sell it ;) -- Tom Brinkman Corpus Christi, Texas Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory limit?
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:50, Paul wrote: > In reply to Fred's mail, d.d. Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:44:17 -0600: > >Hi, > >I have a Mandrake 9.0 system, in the machine I have put three 512Meg > > chips, so it should have 1,536Meg of Ram. But in the system monitor, > > it only shows 884Meg. What is up? When the machine boots, it says it > > has 1572864 memory, so I think the machine sees the memory, but for > > some reason Linux is not seeing it all. Do I need to change some > > setting on my system? > > Hi Fred, > Here a tip directly from my Linux page (saves me a lot of typing!) > > * When booting, Linux does not see all physically installed memory: > e.g. you have 196 megs of RAM and linux only 'sees' 64Megs. As root, you > need to edit /etc/lilo.conf. Add the line > append="mem=196M" > to the kernel-line. > After that run lilo to make the change known to the boot loader (use lilo > -v to make lilo tell some more about what it does). It still is not > right? Set the amount of megs down by 1 or 2 in lilo.conf through the > same procedure. Sometimes that helps. Apparently here are some mainboards > that gobble up some installed RAM for use with video cards. > > Paul > > -- > I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, > but I can't prove it. > > http://nlpagan.net - Linux by Mandrake - Sylpheed by Hiro Not only that, but that standard kernel won't recognise more than 1 GB of RAM. You need to install the enterprise kernel. Its on the first cd: kernel-enterprise-2.4.19.16mdk-1-1mdk.i586.rpm but note that there was a security update on the kernel packages 05 February 2003 - now using kernel-enterprise-2.4.19.24mdk-1-1mdk.i586.rpm. A word of warning: if you have a nvidia graphics card and intend to use the nvidia drivers, you _may_ not get them working with the enterprise kernel, even though there are nvidia drivers specifically for the enterprise kernel. I have tried nvidia's enterprise, source and tarball drivers, as well as Mandrake Club's enterprise drivers and Ranger's drivers all to no avail. And yet a separate installation with the standard kernel works with absolutely no probs. Its difficult to find help with this matter because very few people use the enterprise kernel. I've given up looking for a solution. Cheers Sharrea -- The box said "Requires Windows 95 or better" so I installed Linux -- Mandrake Linux 9.0 Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory limit?
On Tuesday 25 Feb 2003 9:11 pm, Paul wrote: > In reply to Anne's mail, d.d. Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:19:29 +: > >On Tuesday 25 Feb 2003 7:50 pm, Paul wrote: > >> * When booting, Linux does not see all physically installed memory: > >> e.g. you have 196 megs of RAM and linux only 'sees' 64Megs. As root, you > >> need to edit /etc/lilo.conf. Add the line > >> append="mem=196M" > >> to the kernel-line. > > > >Paul - I have mem=nopentium in my append line. Can this take the mem=512M > >at the same time? > > Hi Anne, > > Yes. That would make it > > append="mem=512M nopentium" > > You have to put it all in 1 line, there can only be 1 append line per Lilo > option. > Paul Thanks, Paul. I'll do that. Anne -- Registered Linux User No.293302 Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory limit?
In reply to Anne's mail, d.d. Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:19:29 +: >On Tuesday 25 Feb 2003 7:50 pm, Paul wrote: >> * When booting, Linux does not see all physically installed memory: >> e.g. you have 196 megs of RAM and linux only 'sees' 64Megs. As root, you >> need to edit /etc/lilo.conf. Add the line >> append="mem=196M" >> to the kernel-line. > >Paul - I have mem=nopentium in my append line. Can this take the mem=512M >at the same time? Hi Anne, Yes. That would make it append="mem=512M nopentium" You have to put it all in 1 line, there can only be 1 append line per Lilo option. Paul -- I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove it. http://nlpagan.net - Linux by Mandrake - Sylpheed by Hiro Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory limit?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 25 February 2003 02:50 pm, Terry Sheltra wrote: > If I recall correctly, you need to purchase the server version of > Mandrake. That version will allow memory to be used higher than 1 GB. > Of course, if I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will be more than happy to set > me straight. ;-) > You are correct in that you need the kernel that was intended for servers, but this kernel is included in 9.0 download edition and teh package name if I recall is kernel-enterprise. - -- Greg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+W9yWGu5uuMFlL5MRAguKAJ0Sr6s+esnoPJmM36PlNRTY27AXdwCcD0m5 0rEcD7wQMcH0kYmnvzUtwSI= =cbcY -END PGP SIGNATURE- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
[newbie] Memory Usage - Caching
I've noticed that a lot of my 64mb of memory shows up as "cached" when i do cat /proc/meminfo (i included the output) and i've been wondering if it's normal for linux to use up so much memory. Since i have a limited supply i'd like to have as much free as possible. So my questions are: is it nessecary to have linux cache so much memory and if not then how do i change it to a more suitable setting? -- Where'd you get your CPU, a box of Crackerjacks!? -Wierd Al total:used:free: shared: buffers: cached: Mem: 63741952 61923328 1818624 204800 1462272 39419904 Swap: 254943232 34906112 220037120 MemTotal:62248 kB MemFree: 1776 kB MemShared: 200 kB Buffers: 1428 kB Cached: 23236 kB SwapCached: 15260 kB Active: 36516 kB Inact_dirty: 2968 kB Inact_clean: 640 kB Inact_target: 832 kB HighTotal: 0 kB HighFree:0 kB LowTotal:62248 kB LowFree: 1776 kB SwapTotal: 248968 kB SwapFree: 214880 kB NrSwapPages: 53720 pages Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory test.
El Lun 08 Abr 2002 20:03, escribió: > Seedkum Aladeem wrote: > >Hi, > > > >How do you run the memory test that comes with the CDs? Could not > >install more than a minimal LM 8.2. No qui. > > > >Thanks, > > > > > >Seedkum > > > > > > > Start with a formatted floppy and CD1 in their respective drives and a > console su'ed to root. > > > dd if=/mnt/cdrom/images/memtest-x86.bin of=/dev/fd0 > > Remove the CD, leave in the floppy, and reboot > > Civileme Hola, Civileme. Instead of memtest, I have installed memtest86, and (after a su>pass>lilo) it's addded to lilo's menu, and I don't need to bother with diskettes failures and all that stuff. So, my question is: are memtest and memtest86 differents solutions to the same problem, or, give both the same results? Gracias Carlos -- Carlos Arigós Concordia, Entre Ríos, Argentina Linux MDK 8.2 10:45pm up 2 min, 2 users, load average: 0.92, 0.36, 0.13 Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory test.
Seedkum Aladeem wrote: >Hi, > >How do you run the memory test that comes with the CDs? Could not >install more than a minimal LM 8.2. No qui. > >Thanks, > > >Seedkum > > > > >Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? >Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com > Start with a formatted floppy and CD1 in their respective drives and a console su'ed to root. > dd if=/mnt/cdrom/images/memtest-x86.bin of=/dev/fd0 Remove the CD, leave in the floppy, and reboot Civileme Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
[newbie] Memory test.
Hi, How do you run the memory test that comes with the CDs? Could not install more than a minimal LM 8.2. No qui. Thanks, Seedkum Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] memory problem with openoffice.org
> > This is a multi-part message in MIME format... > > =_1017501743-19779-347 > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > I have installed openoffice.org in mdk 8.1. Before starting it the free was > as follows. > [root@localhost lvgandhi]# free > total used free sharedbuffers cached > Mem:254528 148648 105880128 4372 71012 > -/+ buffers/cache: 73264 181264 > Swap: 136544 0 136544 High 'frees' like that are usually the result of a large application closing - eventually that free space si returned to cache or disk buffers, or given back to applications, depending on your usage. > After opening opening openoffice and a word doc in it I got as follows > [root@localhost lvgandhi]# free > total used free sharedbuffers cached > Mem:254528 248528 6000 9716 4960 131236 > -/+ buffers/cache: 112332 142196 > Swap: 136544 2948 133596 Well, that's normal - open office is a rather big application, so it'll grab what is available. > Mem:254528 248368 6160 9716 4960 131236 > -/+ buffers/cache: 112172 142356 > Swap: 136544 2948 133596 > > As one can see memory is not freed after closing it. Does it mean there is > memory leak or any other problem. Anybody can explain this phenomenon? I'd say that's perfectly normal behavior. That's what the page cache is for (last # on the right): it caches frequently used memory pages in case they may be used again. If for instance you rerun openoffice, that should translate to quicker load time the next time you start it. Otherwise, that memory is reused for other things, depending on your usage. For instance, if you have an app that makes frequent disk seeks, the system will begin to increase the memory for disk buffers. Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
[newbie] memory problem with openoffice.org
I have installed openoffice.org in mdk 8.1. Before starting it the free was as follows. [root@localhost lvgandhi]# free total used free sharedbuffers cached Mem:254528 148648 105880128 4372 71012 -/+ buffers/cache: 73264 181264 Swap: 136544 0 136544 After opening opening openoffice and a word doc in it I got as follows [root@localhost lvgandhi]# free total used free sharedbuffers cached Mem:254528 248528 6000 9716 4960 131236 -/+ buffers/cache: 112332 142196 Swap: 136544 2948 133596 After closing the document and having bare openoffice I had the following [root@localhost lvgandhi]# free total used free sharedbuffers cached Mem:254528 248448 6080 9716 4960 131236 -/+ buffers/cache: 112252 142276 Swap: 136544 2948 133596 After completely closing openoffice I got as follows [root@localhost lvgandhi]# free total used free sharedbuffers cached Mem:254528 248368 6160 9716 4960 131236 -/+ buffers/cache: 112172 142356 Swap: 136544 2948 133596 As one can see memory is not freed after closing it. Does it mean there is memory leak or any other problem. Anybody can explain this phenomenon? -- L.V.Gandhi 203, Soundaryalahari Apartments, Lawsons Bay colony, Visakhapatnam, 530017 MECON, 5th Floor, RTC Complex, Visakhapatnam AP 530020 INDIA [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] linux user No.205042 Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: SV: [newbie] Memory
I STILL think that a service mis-configured is the most likely slowdown. whomever is expericencing the slow down should post their dmesg file under the subject: "slow CPU -dmesg" and go from there. On Friday 15 February 2002 09:09, you wrote: > Another thing to really consider is the memory and cache support in your > chipset. When 200 MHz was a speedy computer the i430Vx and i430Tx > chipsets were common. These chipsets can only cache 64 MB of RAM and an > increase from that amount will lead to a part of the RAM being uncached. > Worth thinking of. More memory might even slow the system down. With KDE > or Gnome and especially when using many applications at the same time > more memory will, however, be worth it. Uncached memory is extremely > faster then swap-space. > > I had a 200 MHz K6 and for me an increase from 64 MB to 128 MB (and from > PC66 to PC100) made a huge increase in performance. > > Good Luck > /Joacim > > > -Ursprungligt meddelande- > > Från: Mario Michael da Costa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Skickat: den 15 februari 2002 05:37 > > Till: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Ämne: Re: [newbie] Memory > > > > > > hmmm, 96 megs is a lot of RAM IMHO, having more RAM won't hurt, but is > > the type of RAM that you want available ? with the 200 mmx systems, > > the SDRAM has to have 60 - 70 ns timing. most modern SDRAMS have 10 > > less ns timing. even the smaller SIMMS are hard to find. check and see > > wether the RAM that you want will be supported by your mobo. refer to > > your mobo manual for this. > > > > besides it is not always true that incrasing your ram will increase > > the speed of your computer, the reverse is also possible. offhand, 128 > > MB would be ideal for a 200 mmx system, you have 96 which is good > > enough. > > > > switch to windowmaker/fvwm(2)/enlightenment instead of gnome or kde. > > > > Thank You, > > Regards, > > mario > > > > Roy wrote: > > > ram is the biggest bottle neck on a machine. installing > > > > ram will help out > > > > > alot by improving most software preformace and reduce the > > > > read-write caching > > > > > to your hard drive > > > roy > > > - Original Message - > > > From: Marcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 1:26 PM > > > Subject: [newbie] Memory > > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > > > Happy Valentine's Day. > > > > > > > > I have a desktop computer that is only 200mhz and has 96 > > > > megs of ram. I > > > > > would > > > > > > > like to upgrade it to have 256 megs of ram but is that > > > > all for nothing if > > > > > I > > > > > > > do not upgrade the cpu? > > > > > > > > Thanks for the help. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > Marcia > > > > -- > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? > > > > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com > > > > > > --- > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > > Version: 6.0.323 / Virus Database: 180 - Release Date: 2/8/02 > > > > -- > > > > > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? > > > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com > > > > -- > > "The software said 'runs on Win95 or better,' so I installed it on > > Linux" Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory(Again)
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:41:03 -0500 Marcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear All, > > Thanks very much for your input and suggestions. Since memory is inexpensive > right now I am leaning towards increasing it. I have a program that asks for > 256 megs of ram. It is a SAP program. My hard drive is new anyway and it is > possible I may decide to upgrade the cpu in the future. I found old receipts > for the memory modules on my system and it is using 2 EPS-RM716E72pin EDO > memory module 16 MB and 2 EPS-RM732EDRAM 32MB SIMM MODULE EDO. I did find a > supplier for the 72 pin ED > O Simms modules. Does this mean I need to buy 2 or 4 of those and do they all > need to be the Simms modules? Your help will be greatly appreciated here, > because I will order these right away if I can find the right ones. > > By the way, is it difficult to upgrade the cpu? What is the best to upgrade > it to? > Marcia I do not know from what site you plan to purchase your memory but 1 thought that you might wish to consider that if the cost of the memory is going to be $100 or more and If your current computer case can fit an ATX board then it might be more cost and performance effective for you to purchase a MOBO CPU combo and 256MB of either PC133 or DDR. You can find 1gig athlon combos for around $100 and the ram for $50 or less. And of course lower CPU at even lessor prices. And if you read the docs and do not let it intimidate you putting a system together is easy. I am at the point now that I would not Have a pre-built system. Charles Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory(Again)
Marcia wrote: > Thanks very much for your input and suggestions. Since memory is inexpensive > right now I am leaning towards increasing it. I have a program that asks for > 256 megs of ram. It is a SAP program. My hard drive is new anyway and it is > possible I may decide to upgrade the cpu in the future. I found old receipts > for the memory modules on my system and it is using 2 EPS-RM716E72pin EDO > memory module 16 MB and 2 EPS-RM732EDRAM 32MB SIMM MODULE EDO. I did find a > supplier for the 72 pin ED > O Simms modules. Does this mean I need to buy 2 or 4 of those and do they all > need to be the Simms modules? Your help will be greatly appreciated here, > because I will order these right away if I can find the right ones. Marcia, Before you order anything: Do you have the instructions for your motherboard? It should tell you what combinations of memory are allowed -- confirm that whatever you order will work with your motherboard. If you don't have the instructions, get the model number and check with the manufacturer. Randy Kramer Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory(Again)
On Fri, 2002-02-15 at 10:41, Marcia wrote: > Dear All, > > Thanks very much for your input and suggestions. Since memory is inexpensive > right now I am leaning towards increasing it. I have a program that asks for > 256 megs of ram. It is a SAP program. My hard drive is new anyway and it is > possible I may decide to upgrade the cpu in the future. I found old receipts > for the memory modules on my system and it is using 2 EPS-RM716E72pin EDO > memory module 16 MB and 2 EPS-RM732EDRAM 32MB SIMM MODULE EDO. I did find a > supplier for the 72 pin ED > O Simms modules. Does this mean I need to buy 2 or 4 of those and do they all > need to be the Simms modules? Your help will be greatly appreciated here, > because I will order these right away if I can find the right ones. You will find that as long as it is 72-pin (SIMM) EDO, it should work fine. SIMM modules came in a couple of types, 30-pin and 72-pin. Your are both 72-pin SIMMs. As far as I know, EDO was/is only available in the 72-pin variety (and not the 30-pin), so you should be safe. > By the way, is it difficult to upgrade the cpu? What is the best to upgrade > it to? CPUs are easy to upgrade, *as long as your motherboard will support the increased speed*. You just unlatch and lift a single lever to loosen the CPU in its socket, pull it out, drop in the new one and push the lever back down into its latch. You will probably also need to remove the heat sink on top of the CPU, but that is usually also a pretty easy thing. As an example, my first Win95 PC had a Pentium 120MHz CPU running on a 60MHz front-side bus (FSB) with a 2x clock multiplier. If you don't see the relationship, notice that 60 x 2 = 120. Therefore, the CPU speed in MHz (megahertz) is always a product of the front-side bus multiplied by the clock speed multiplier. I later looked at the motherboard specs, and found that I could increase the FSB from 60 to 66 MHz, which would effectively also give me a 133MHz CPU speed (66 x 2 = 132, but in fact the 66MHz was really 66...., so it comes out to 133 when doubled). Even later, I also noticed that I could increase the clock multiplier from 2 to 2.5 or even 3! This would give me yet another speed boost, from 133MHz to 166 (66 x 2.5) or 200MHz (66 x 3). I tried to change it with my current CPU, but the CPU itself couldn't handle that clock speed, and refused to boot. I then purchased a 200MHz Pentium, popped it into my motherboard, and whee! I had my 200MHz system running perfectly. Now, noticing that you are running a 200MHz CPU already, you will need to check your motherboard specs (often available from the PC manufacturer) to see if it can handle a higher clock multiplier and/or higher front-side bus speed. Chances are pretty good it will *not* be able to handle a faster FSB, but it *will* take a higher clock multiplier. Assuming this is the case, and that your clock multiplier is 3x, then if you can get it to 3.5x or 4x you should be able to handle a Pentium 233 or 266MHz CPU. I think 266MHz was the fastest Pentium that Intel made, but it is possible they came out with a 300 or even 333. I know the Pentium II CPUs started at 233 and went up from there, I just don't remember how much crossover there was in the speed (MHz) ratings between the original Pentium and the Pentium II. Dave -- Beware the wrath of dragons, for you are crunchy, and good with ketchup. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
RE: [newbie] Memory(Again)
Title: RE: [newbie] Memory(Again) since all four slots are 72 pin It would seem reasonable that the best choice would be to replace the two 16mb modules with 32mb SIMM EDO. SEE: http://192.216.185.10/mwave/ProdMR-MW.hmx?UID=CN%2D1121954&CID=&updepts=MR&DNAME=%3Cb%3EMemory+%2D+Mwave%3C%2Fb%3E&back=ProdMR-MW.hmx? Current competitive prices I have seen. I am not sure but believe that with simm it is always best to upgrade in pairs. HTH Dennis M. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Marcia Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 10:41 AM To: Marcia Subject: [newbie] Memory(Again) Dear All, Thanks very much for your input and suggestions. Since memory is inexpensive right now I am leaning towards increasing it. I have a program that asks for 256 megs of ram. It is a SAP program. My hard drive is new anyway and it is possible I may decide to upgrade the cpu in the future. I found old receipts for the memory modules on my system and it is using 2 EPS-RM716E72pin EDO memory module 16 MB and 2 EPS-RM732EDRAM 32MB SIMM MODULE EDO. I did find a supplier for the 72 pin ED O Simms modules. Does this mean I need to buy 2 or 4 of those and do they all need to be the Simms modules? Your help will be greatly appreciated here, because I will order these right away if I can find the right ones. By the way, is it difficult to upgrade the cpu? What is the best to upgrade it to? Thanks very much for all of your help and suggestions. Marcia
[newbie] Memory(Again)
Dear All, Thanks very much for your input and suggestions. Since memory is inexpensive right now I am leaning towards increasing it. I have a program that asks for 256 megs of ram. It is a SAP program. My hard drive is new anyway and it is possible I may decide to upgrade the cpu in the future. I found old receipts for the memory modules on my system and it is using 2 EPS-RM716E72pin EDO memory module 16 MB and 2 EPS-RM732EDRAM 32MB SIMM MODULE EDO. I did find a supplier for the 72 pin ED O Simms modules. Does this mean I need to buy 2 or 4 of those and do they all need to be the Simms modules? Your help will be greatly appreciated here, because I will order these right away if I can find the right ones. By the way, is it difficult to upgrade the cpu? What is the best to upgrade it to? Thanks very much for all of your help and suggestions. Marcia Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: SV: [newbie] Memory
as far as i know, the vx-chipset was able to cache more than 64mb... but... because of the vx-chipset being able to work with single ram-modules instead of pairs and the way the chipset worked to accomplish this, the vx was slower than a "normal" chipset. the one and only master chipset in this era was hx... on the other hand, when working with 200mhz, there is no need for the last piece of performance anyway :) Am 15.02.2002 15:09:12, schrieb Joacim Wängdahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >Another thing to really consider is the memory and cache support in your >chipset. When 200 MHz was a speedy computer the i430Vx and i430Tx >chipsets were common. These chipsets can only cache 64 MB of RAM and an >increase from that amount will lead to a part of the RAM being uncached. >Worth thinking of. More memory might even slow the system down. With KDE >or Gnome and especially when using many applications at the same time >more memory will, however, be worth it. Uncached memory is extremely >faster then swap-space. > >I had a 200 MHz K6 and for me an increase from 64 MB to 128 MB (and from >PC66 to PC100) made a huge increase in performance. > >Good Luck >/Joacim > >> -Ursprungligt meddelande- >> Från: Mario Michael da Costa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Skickat: den 15 februari 2002 05:37 >> Till: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Ämne: Re: [newbie] Memory >> >> >> hmmm, 96 megs is a lot of RAM IMHO, having more RAM won't hurt, but is >> the type of RAM that you want available ? with the 200 mmx systems, >> the SDRAM has to have 60 - 70 ns timing. most modern SDRAMS have 10 >> less ns timing. even the smaller SIMMS are hard to find. check and see >> wether the RAM that you want will be supported by your mobo. refer to >> your mobo manual for this. >> >> besides it is not always true that incrasing your ram will increase >> the speed of your computer, the reverse is also possible. offhand, 128 >> MB would be ideal for a 200 mmx system, you have 96 which is good >> enough. >> >> switch to windowmaker/fvwm(2)/enlightenment instead of gnome or kde. >> >> Thank You, >> Regards, >> mario >> >> Roy wrote: >> > >> > ram is the biggest bottle neck on a machine. installing >> ram will help out >> > alot by improving most software preformace and reduce the >> read-write caching >> > to your hard drive >> > roy >> > - Original Message - >> > From: Marcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 1:26 PM >> > Subject: [newbie] Memory >> > >> > > Dear All, >> > > >> > > Happy Valentine's Day. >> > > >> > > I have a desktop computer that is only 200mhz and has 96 >> megs of ram. I >> > would >> > > like to upgrade it to have 256 megs of ram but is that >> all for nothing if >> > I >> > > do not upgrade the cpu? >> > > >> > > Thanks for the help. >> > > Sincerely, >> > > >> > > Marcia >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> -- >> -- >> > >> > >> > > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? >> > > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com >> > > >> > >> > --- >> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >> > Version: 6.0.323 / Virus Database: 180 - Release Date: 2/8/02 >> > >> > >> -- >> > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? >> > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com >> >> -- >> "The software said 'runs on Win95 or better,' so I installed it on >> Linux" >> >> > > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
SV: [newbie] Memory
Another thing to really consider is the memory and cache support in your chipset. When 200 MHz was a speedy computer the i430Vx and i430Tx chipsets were common. These chipsets can only cache 64 MB of RAM and an increase from that amount will lead to a part of the RAM being uncached. Worth thinking of. More memory might even slow the system down. With KDE or Gnome and especially when using many applications at the same time more memory will, however, be worth it. Uncached memory is extremely faster then swap-space. I had a 200 MHz K6 and for me an increase from 64 MB to 128 MB (and from PC66 to PC100) made a huge increase in performance. Good Luck /Joacim > -Ursprungligt meddelande- > Från: Mario Michael da Costa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Skickat: den 15 februari 2002 05:37 > Till: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Ämne: Re: [newbie] Memory > > > hmmm, 96 megs is a lot of RAM IMHO, having more RAM won't hurt, but is > the type of RAM that you want available ? with the 200 mmx systems, > the SDRAM has to have 60 - 70 ns timing. most modern SDRAMS have 10 > less ns timing. even the smaller SIMMS are hard to find. check and see > wether the RAM that you want will be supported by your mobo. refer to > your mobo manual for this. > > besides it is not always true that incrasing your ram will increase > the speed of your computer, the reverse is also possible. offhand, 128 > MB would be ideal for a 200 mmx system, you have 96 which is good > enough. > > switch to windowmaker/fvwm(2)/enlightenment instead of gnome or kde. > > Thank You, > Regards, > mario > > Roy wrote: > > > > ram is the biggest bottle neck on a machine. installing > ram will help out > > alot by improving most software preformace and reduce the > read-write caching > > to your hard drive > > roy > > - Original Message - > > From: Marcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 1:26 PM > > Subject: [newbie] Memory > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > Happy Valentine's Day. > > > > > > I have a desktop computer that is only 200mhz and has 96 > megs of ram. I > > would > > > like to upgrade it to have 256 megs of ram but is that > all for nothing if > > I > > > do not upgrade the cpu? > > > > > > Thanks for the help. > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > Marcia > > > > > > > > > > > -- > -- > > > > > > > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? > > > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com > > > > > > > --- > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.323 / Virus Database: 180 - Release Date: 2/8/02 > > > > > -- > > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? > > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com > > -- > "The software said 'runs on Win95 or better,' so I installed it on > Linux" > > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory
hmmm, 96 megs is a lot of RAM IMHO, having more RAM won't hurt, but is the type of RAM that you want available ? with the 200 mmx systems, the SDRAM has to have 60 - 70 ns timing. most modern SDRAMS have 10 less ns timing. even the smaller SIMMS are hard to find. check and see wether the RAM that you want will be supported by your mobo. refer to your mobo manual for this. besides it is not always true that incrasing your ram will increase the speed of your computer, the reverse is also possible. offhand, 128 MB would be ideal for a 200 mmx system, you have 96 which is good enough. switch to windowmaker/fvwm(2)/enlightenment instead of gnome or kde. Thank You, Regards, mario Roy wrote: > > ram is the biggest bottle neck on a machine. installing ram will help out > alot by improving most software preformace and reduce the read-write caching > to your hard drive > roy > - Original Message - > From: Marcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 1:26 PM > Subject: [newbie] Memory > > > Dear All, > > > > Happy Valentine's Day. > > > > I have a desktop computer that is only 200mhz and has 96 megs of ram. I > would > > like to upgrade it to have 256 megs of ram but is that all for nothing if > I > > do not upgrade the cpu? > > > > Thanks for the help. > > Sincerely, > > > > Marcia > > > > > > > > > > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? > > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.323 / Virus Database: 180 - Release Date: 2/8/02 > > -- > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com -- "The software said 'runs on Win95 or better,' so I installed it on Linux" Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory
Hello Marcia, Friday, February 15, 2002, 6:26:50 AM, you wrote: M> Dear All, M> Happy Valentine's Day. M> I have a desktop computer that is only 200mhz and has 96 megs of ram. I would M> like to upgrade it to have 256 megs of ram but is that all for nothing if I M> do not upgrade the cpu? M> Thanks for the help. M> Sincerely, M> Marcia depends what you use it for I'm running lm8.1 on a 200mmx with 198M EDO ram as a logon server, print server and for internet connection sharing on my home lan (5 machines). In this role it runs very well, but is a bit slow for use as a workstation... mind you, I did upgrade from a P166 with 80M ram :( -- Best regards, Colinmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 4:20pm up 2 days, 18:35, 1 user, load average: 0.51, 0.53, 0.47 Justice: A decision in your favour. ..registered linux user #223862 .. _ Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory
I had a 200 with 256mg of ram and it ran quite speedily. It was faster than my amd 400 running windows 98se. The Hard drive will need to be fast too, really all the hardware will need to be as fast as possible to get the best speed out of the system. an old very slow HD, or Old Pc66 ram even if in great quantity can slow down the box. I had pc 100 sdram and a ata 66 hard drive. I put an old 850 wd drive in it and it slowed down alot. for me it all depended on what was under the hood. YMMV Mike Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory
dfox wrote: > > > I have a desktop computer that is only 200mhz and has 96 megs of ram. I would > > like to upgrade it to have 256 megs of ram but is that all for nothing if I > > do not upgrade the cpu? > > It depends on what you really want to do, and how fast you feel your > existing system should be. Case in point - about a year ago I was > running with a P-100 (twice as slow roughly as yours) and even after > expanding its RAM up to 96 megs it still felt fairly slow - especially > after using a Pentium II at work. > > After getting an Athlon, there was a really eye-opening speed boost, and > you couldn't get that just by upgrading the RAM. > > RAM is really fairly cheap right now, but if you do desire to upgrade > in the near future, the extra money spent for RAM won't do you much > good, and can even be a waste, especially if you are using an older > system, since many systems of your vintage probably use 72 pin DIMM > memory, whilst the newer systems use 168 pin PC-133 (SIMM) or even > DDR. > And it depends on how much money you have to spend. I think you can get a lot of bang for the buck by buying 128 or 256 MB of the 168 pin RAM. You might spend $20 to $50. Don't know what you'll spend for an Athlon, but you'll still need them much RAM, IMHO. Randy Kramer Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory
> I have a desktop computer that is only 200mhz and has 96 megs of ram. I would > like to upgrade it to have 256 megs of ram but is that all for nothing if I > do not upgrade the cpu? It depends on what you really want to do, and how fast you feel your existing system should be. Case in point - about a year ago I was running with a P-100 (twice as slow roughly as yours) and even after expanding its RAM up to 96 megs it still felt fairly slow - especially after using a Pentium II at work. After getting an Athlon, there was a really eye-opening speed boost, and you couldn't get that just by upgrading the RAM. RAM is really fairly cheap right now, but if you do desire to upgrade in the near future, the extra money spent for RAM won't do you much good, and can even be a waste, especially if you are using an older system, since many systems of your vintage probably use 72 pin DIMM memory, whilst the newer systems use 168 pin PC-133 (SIMM) or even DDR. > Marcia Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory
ram is the biggest bottle neck on a machine. installing ram will help out alot by improving most software preformace and reduce the read-write caching to your hard drive roy - Original Message - From: Marcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 1:26 PM Subject: [newbie] Memory > Dear All, > > Happy Valentine's Day. > > I have a desktop computer that is only 200mhz and has 96 megs of ram. I would > like to upgrade it to have 256 megs of ram but is that all for nothing if I > do not upgrade the cpu? > > Thanks for the help. > Sincerely, > > Marcia > > > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.323 / Virus Database: 180 - Release Date: 2/8/02 Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory
Marcia wrote: >Dear All, > >Happy Valentine's Day. > >I have a desktop computer that is only 200mhz and has 96 megs of ram. I would >like to upgrade it to have 256 megs of ram but is that all for nothing if I >do not upgrade the cpu? > >Thanks for the help. >Sincerely, > >Marcia > > > > >Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? >Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com > The RAM upgrade is always helpful--the system will use it as quickly as possible for buffer and cache if programs are not using it and this speeds throughput. Even more helpful is kernel 2.4.17 or later because the virtual memory algorithm thrashes the disk much less. This was the big slow-down for the changeover to kernel 2.4 Civileme Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory
Marcia wrote: > I have a desktop computer that is only 200mhz and has 96 megs of ram. I would > like to upgrade it to have 256 megs of ram but is that all for nothing if I > do not upgrade the cpu? No, IME, additional RAM is often more significant than increased processor speed in influencing the overall speed of your computer. It depends partially on what you do with your machine. Do you keep a lot of windows open? Is your machine using swap now? How much? How often do you reboot? Do you notice your machine slowing down after you start using swap? If so, adding RAM will certainly help. Randy Kramer Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Marcia wrote: > >%_Dear All, > > Happy Valentine's Day. > > I have a desktop computer that is only 200mhz and has 96 megs of ram. I would > like to upgrade it to have 256 megs of ram but is that all for nothing if I > do not upgrade the cpu? > run top if you are doing a lot of swapping then the RAM will help else it won't > Content-Type: text/plain; name="message.footer" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Description: -- Gerald Waugh Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory
Marcia wrote: >Dear All, > >Happy Valentine's Day. > >I have a desktop computer that is only 200mhz and has 96 megs of ram. I would >like to upgrade it to have 256 megs of ram but is that all for nothing if I >do not upgrade the cpu? > >Thanks for the help. >Sincerely, > >Marcia > > > > >Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? >Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com > you have a point in that, in a pentium 200 you whould notice only a small difference in speed, it's not worth it because you can upgrade your cpu and motherboard and going to 256mb but rambus that is even faster than the standard pc133 dimm's. Good valentine's for you to Afonso Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:26:50 -0500 Marcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> thoughtfully uttered these words to ponder: > Dear All, > > Happy Valentine's Day. > > I have a desktop computer that is only 200mhz and has 96 megs of ram. > I would like to upgrade it to have 256 megs of ram but is that all for > nothing if I do not upgrade the cpu? > > Thanks for the help. > Sincerely, > > Marcia > Marcia, you should be able to run just fine on your 200Mhz machine, and one can "never" have too much RAM. Except if you're running Windows98 and you've got more then 512MB. Winders98 can't see any more then that. Linux can see up to 4GB of RAM on the other hand. At home I'm running an AMD K6 233 with 160MB of RAM. That is one solid machine. have at it. -- daRcmaTTeR Registered Linux User 182496 Mandrake 8.1 - 3:05pm up 4:48, 2 users, load average: 0.13, 0.12, 0.10 Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
[newbie] Memory
Dear All, Happy Valentine's Day. I have a desktop computer that is only 200mhz and has 96 megs of ram. I would like to upgrade it to have 256 megs of ram but is that all for nothing if I do not upgrade the cpu? Thanks for the help. Sincerely, Marcia Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory Management
Es Dom 10 Feb 2002 02:28, Tonton va escriure: > I always encounter out of memory in using Linux Mandrake, I can't open > different programs simultaneously, my system always hang up and I have > nothing to do but to press the reset button. What should I do? > > Here's my system specs. > > P-III 600 MHz > 17 GB Hard disk > where I partition my hard drive using Partition Magic > > C: 7,773.6 MB for Windows 98 FAT32 Primary > D: 5,655.7 MB FAT32 Logical > Linux 3,012.2 MB for Linux LinuxExt32 Logical Where's your swap partition?? 8-) Try creating a, for instance, 250 Mb swap partition and you won't have any more problems... > 64 MB RAM > 16 MB Video Card > version: Linux Mandrake 8.0 > > __ > www.edsamail.com -- Joan Tur. Ibiza - Spain Yahoo & AOL quini2k ICQ 11407395 www.ClubIbosim.org Linux: usuari registrat 190.783 Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
RE: [newbie] Memory Management
How much swap do you have defined? You machine definately calls 'swapon' in
the boot process? What's the output from 'free'?
I've no idea of what LinuxExt32 is - is it EXT2 or EXT3?
-Original Message-
From: Tonton [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 1:28 AM
To: NEWBIE
Subject:[newbie] Memory Management
I always encounter out of memory in using Linux Mandrake, I can't
open different programs simultaneously, my system always hang up and I have
nothing to do but to press the reset button. What should I do?
Here's my system specs.
P-III 600 MHz
17 GB Hard disk
where I partition my hard drive using Partition Magic
C: 7,773.6 MB for Windows 98 FAT32 Primary
D: 5,655.7 MB FAT32 Logical
Linux 3,012.2 MB for Linux LinuxExt32 Logical
64 MB RAM
16 MB Video Card
version: Linux Mandrake 8.0
__
www.edsamail.com
<< File: message.footer >>
**
This email and any files sent with it are intended only for the named
recipient. If you are not the named recipient please telephone/email
the sender immediately. You should not disclose the content or
take/retain/distribute any copies.
**
Norwich Union Life & Pensions Limited
Registered Office 2 Rougier Street
York YO90 1UU
Registered in England Number 3253947
A member of the Norwich Union Marketing Group
which is regulated by the Personal Investment Authority.
Member of the Association of British Insurers.
For further Enquires 01603 622200
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory Management
On Sun, 10 Feb 2002 09:28:08 +0800 "Tonton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> scribbled in frustration: >I always encounter out of memory in using Linux Mandrake, I can't open >different programs simultaneously, my system always hang up and I have >nothing to do but to press the reset button. What should I do? > >Here's my system specs. > >P-III 600 MHz >17 GB Hard disk > where I partition my hard drive using Partition Magic > > C: 7,773.6 MB for Windows 98 FAT32 Primary > D: 5,655.7 MB FAT32 Logical > Linux 3,012.2 MB for Linux LinuxExt32 Logical > >64 MB RAM >16 MB Video Card >version: Linux Mandrake 8.0 === Do you have a swap partition?? I don't see one above... How big?? Are you running one of the monster environments? (KDE or Gnome) You may want to add more RAM. It's pretty cheap about now (but starting to climb again, I think.. so don't waste time). You can likely add another 256mb for about US$50. Maybe less... Mike -- "Laws for the liberal education of youth, especially for the lower classes of people, are so extremely wise and useful that to a humane and generous mind, no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant." --John Adams _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
[newbie] Memory Management
I always encounter out of memory in using Linux Mandrake, I can't open different programs simultaneously, my system always hang up and I have nothing to do but to press the reset button. What should I do? Here's my system specs. P-III 600 MHz 17 GB Hard disk where I partition my hard drive using Partition Magic C: 7,773.6 MB for Windows 98 FAT32 Primary D: 5,655.7 MB FAT32 Logical Linux 3,012.2 MB for Linux LinuxExt32 Logical 64 MB RAM 16 MB Video Card version: Linux Mandrake 8.0 __ www.edsamail.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory Problem?
El Domingo 16 Diciembre 2001 23:31, escribió: > I've got Mandrake 8.0 on my system right now (but I'm writing this from > Windows, for reasons that will be made clear). My system, an Athlon 950 > from Gateway, came with 128 Megs of RAM. Everything installed and ran fine. > So, of course, I had to change things. > I added 256 Megs of RAM. It's not the same overall dimensions as the OEM > one, but they both are SDRAM and 133 Mhz, so they should be fine. And, they > work fine under Windows ME. But when I try to boot back into Linux (using > LILO), it tries to start up the Xwindows, and then boots back to a command > prompt, asking for a logon. Before I can even do that, I start seeing a > series of error messages, apparently having something to do with the USB > support. Since this worked fine with 128 Megs, I think that this isn't the > problem, but that the memory is. > So: does Mandrake not like changing the installed memory after you've got > a system up and running? Should I boot from the boot disk and add a > parameter telling it of the new amount of RAM? (That would be 'Linux > append="mem=384", right?) Or should I just reinstall? > Thanks! > Larry Varney Larry. A couple of days ago, like you, I upgrade from 128 to 384 without problems. Try the Tom-Dennis's hint. Good luck. Carlos Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory Problem?
On Sunday 16 December 2001 21:31, you wrote: > I've got Mandrake 8.0 on my system right now (but I'm writing this from > Windows, for reasons that will be made clear). My system, an Athlon 950 > from Gateway, came with 128 Megs of RAM. Everything installed and ran fine. > So, of course, I had to change things. > I added 256 Megs of RAM. It's not the same overall dimensions as the OEM > one, but they both are SDRAM and 133 Mhz, so they should be fine. And, they > work fine under Windows ME. But when I try to boot back into Linux (using > LILO), it tries to start up the Xwindows, and then boots back to a command > prompt, asking for a logon. Before I can even do that, I start seeing a > series of error messages, apparently having something to do with the USB > support. Since this worked fine with 128 Megs, I think that this isn't the > problem, but that the memory is. > So: does Mandrake not like changing the installed memory after you've got > a system up and running? Should I boot from the boot disk and add a > parameter telling it of the new amount of RAM? (That would be 'Linux > append="mem=384", right?) Or should I just reinstall? > Thanks! > Larry Varney > Cold Spring, KY > http://w3.one.net/~lvarney First thing I would do is use Tom Brinkmans' trick and take the new ram and very gently use an eraser to clean the contacts and put it back in, and try again. Linux is very good about seeing new ram unless it is defective. Windows will tell you you have all that ram when it may not be working correctly. If after cleaning and you boot up again and don't see the correct ram identified on the screen just before it goes to the gui or if you have it set on single user mode and it goes to the blocky penguin screen, the ram is shown there, then try appending the correct amount of ram to lilo. If that doesn't work try using memtest86 which is on the 8.1 download CDs . HTH -- Dennis M. registered linux user # 180842 Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
[newbie] Memory Problem?
I've got Mandrake 8.0 on my system right now (but I'm writing this from Windows, for reasons that will be made clear). My system, an Athlon 950 from Gateway, came with 128 Megs of RAM. Everything installed and ran fine. So, of course, I had to change things. I added 256 Megs of RAM. It's not the same overall dimensions as the OEM one, but they both are SDRAM and 133 Mhz, so they should be fine. And, they work fine under Windows ME. But when I try to boot back into Linux (using LILO), it tries to start up the Xwindows, and then boots back to a command prompt, asking for a logon. Before I can even do that, I start seeing a series of error messages, apparently having something to do with the USB support. Since this worked fine with 128 Megs, I think that this isn't the problem, but that the memory is. So: does Mandrake not like changing the installed memory after you've got a system up and running? Should I boot from the boot disk and add a parameter telling it of the new amount of RAM? (That would be 'Linux append="mem=384", right?) Or should I just reinstall? Thanks! Larry Varney Cold Spring, KY http://w3.one.net/~lvarney Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] memory: leaks and fragmentations
I think so, check all the service u run. I just use 128Mb, never got like what u got. I monitor my memory used by gkrellm and open bluefish, opera, netscape, xmms, yahoo messenger, prozilla download manager, audio galaxy satellite, and still works fine, with not that much of using memory as u did. It's absolutely not windoze box! Well, yeah gnome is good, but kde has too many thing that much more interesting, like integration of all kde application. Kde is more fancy, but u could use window maker or black box which is lighter. -m- On Monday 03 December 2001 18:12, you wrote: > this has been gone into for ever..but what you are veiwing _Might_ have to > do with the cache use by linux. I don't think it is a "memory leak" (this > ain't your win 95 box) > > On Monday 03 December 2001 04:08, you wrote: > > I think my KDE has a memory leak, although I've not been able to find any > > info on the possibility at kde.org. When I first turn on the computer, > > KDE is using about 80MB, just now it was using 250MB (ouch!). I got those > > two numbers from gtop. The memory usage builds up slowly over time. > > > > I just shutdown kde and looked at my memory with top, and despite all the > > kde processes being gone the memory usage didn't drop by much at all. At > > runlevel 3 with X/kde shutdown, and nothing but top being ran by me > > directly, I had about 70MB free of my 384MB of memory. That just doesn't > > sound right. I thought I left memory fragmenting behind with the > > Macintosh > > > > :) > > > > Now, coming back into kde, kde is using about 150MB. A big improvement > > over 250MB, but still more than it seems like it should be using. > > > > I am using kde 2.2.1. I had 2.2.2 briefly installed and noted it did the > > same thing. > > > > Searching the net doesn't turn up much. It seems people think Linux > > handles memory ok :) > > > > I think I will start using gnome or iceWM for a while and see if I notice > > the same thing happening. > > > > Matt > > > > _ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] memory: leaks and fragmentations
Ed Tharp wrote: > well now... i guess it depends on your dafinition (spelled the way i wanted) > of what is a memory leak. i would have bet that was abiword "cacheing" the > documentsand I have noticed the same behaivior with Adobe Photoshop. it does > make "re-opening" the same file somewhat quicker in my opinion. but I would > not have called it a "leak' as the mem was returned (for the most part, it is > a winders program) It's not a cache. After each of these steps, check the resources available in the Resource Meter. Open AbiWord. Open an existing document in AbiWord (which creates a new window). Close that document. Open it, close it, open it, close it, ... After each open close cycle you will notice that fewer and fewer resources are available. Is AbiWord caching the same document multiple times? (If that is the case, it is just as good as a memory leak.) Randy Kramer Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] memory: leaks and fragmentations
On Monday 03 December 2001 15:47, you wrote: > > As I understand it a leak is returned to the OS after the program > > finishes. The problem with leaks is they can cause problems while the > > program is running. > > There were problems with different versions of windows, where the memory > was NOT returned to the OS when the program exited. Quality OS eh? What a > joke. yep I remember running a network of win95a computers, we just told everyone to turn the box off at night, or reboot every three days, if the "system" does not reboot you. Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] memory: leaks and fragmentations
Richard Wenninger wrote: > yes.. but when that process terminates... the memory should be returned to > the system, right? in which case... the OS never lost track of it. Maybe there are different levels of memory leak? In many cases after you shut down a Windows program which continued to use more and more memory, the memory is freed for the OS. Example: (sadly) the recent versions of AbiWord (for Windows) that I've tested have a memory leak. If you invoke AbiWord and then open and close additional windows for documents, more and more memory is used, but not freed up until you close the last AbiWord window, at which point all the memory is restored. (Note: some memory is restored each time you close a document (window), but more and more is locked up until you finally close AbiWord completely. There seem to be other memory leaks that do not restore the lost memory until a reboot. Now that I've written this, I suspect that some of the memory leaks are in the operating system itself and some are in applications, thus making the difference. Maybe Linux (currently) has no leaks in the operating system itself. (But, I'll bet some of the development versions have had leaks.) Speculating, Randy Kramer Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] memory: leaks and fragmentations
yes.. but when that process terminates... the memory should be returned to the system, right? in which case... the OS never lost track of it. On Monday 03 December 2001 12:59 pm, you wrote: > On Monday 03 December 2001 12:17 pm, you wrote: > > Ed Tharp wrote: > > > this has been gone into for ever..but what you are veiwing _Might_ have > > > to do with the cache use by linux. I don't think it is a "memory leak" > > > (this ain't your win 95 box) > > > > I don't think there is anything inherent in Linux which will prevent > > memory leaks -- it comes down to care and testing by the programmer. > > AFAIK, memory leaks can be created anywhere C or C++ are used (and > > probably many other languages). > > Yup, I just tested that. Linux does not appear to make any attempt to stop > memory leaks. I wrote a quick program with an infinite loop that > dynamically allocated some memory. Watching top, its memory usage climbed > dramatically. > > There's really no way for Linux to know if I really am using that memory or > not, so I don't see how it could interfere. > > Matt > > _ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] memory: leaks and fragmentations
On Monday 03 December 2001 12:17 pm, you wrote: > Ed Tharp wrote: > > this has been gone into for ever..but what you are veiwing _Might_ have > > to do with the cache use by linux. I don't think it is a "memory leak" > > (this ain't your win 95 box) > > I don't think there is anything inherent in Linux which will prevent > memory leaks -- it comes down to care and testing by the programmer. > AFAIK, memory leaks can be created anywhere C or C++ are used (and > probably many other languages). > Yup, I just tested that. Linux does not appear to make any attempt to stop memory leaks. I wrote a quick program with an infinite loop that dynamically allocated some memory. Watching top, its memory usage climbed dramatically. There's really no way for Linux to know if I really am using that memory or not, so I don't see how it could interfere. Matt _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] memory: leaks and fragmentations
Ed Tharp wrote: > this has been gone into for ever..but what you are veiwing _Might_ have to do > with the cache use by linux. I don't think it is a "memory leak" (this ain't > your win 95 box) I don't think there is anything inherent in Linux which will prevent memory leaks -- it comes down to care and testing by the programmer. AFAIK, memory leaks can be created anywhere C or C++ are used (and probably many other languages). Randy Kramer Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] memory: leaks and fragmentations
On Monday 03 December 2001 03:08 am, you wrote: > I just shutdown kde and looked at my memory with top, and despite all the > kde processes being gone the memory usage didn't drop by much at all. At > runlevel 3 with X/kde shutdown, and nothing but top being ran by me > directly, I had about 70MB free of my 384MB of memory. That just doesn't > sound right. I thought I left memory fragmenting behind with the Macintosh > :) Well I got one answer to this. Linux purposely grabs free memory to use for disk write caching and the like. So the fact that my memory is nearly full despite most everything being shutdown is not really a concern. I'm still curious about KDE, though. Matt _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] memory: leaks and fragmentations
this has been gone into for ever..but what you are veiwing _Might_ have to do with the cache use by linux. I don't think it is a "memory leak" (this ain't your win 95 box) On Monday 03 December 2001 04:08, you wrote: > I think my KDE has a memory leak, although I've not been able to find any > info on the possibility at kde.org. When I first turn on the computer, KDE > is using about 80MB, just now it was using 250MB (ouch!). I got those two > numbers from gtop. The memory usage builds up slowly over time. > > I just shutdown kde and looked at my memory with top, and despite all the > kde processes being gone the memory usage didn't drop by much at all. At > runlevel 3 with X/kde shutdown, and nothing but top being ran by me > directly, I had about 70MB free of my 384MB of memory. That just doesn't > sound right. I thought I left memory fragmenting behind with the Macintosh > :) > > Now, coming back into kde, kde is using about 150MB. A big improvement over > 250MB, but still more than it seems like it should be using. > > I am using kde 2.2.1. I had 2.2.2 briefly installed and noted it did the > same thing. > > Searching the net doesn't turn up much. It seems people think Linux handles > memory ok :) > > I think I will start using gnome or iceWM for a while and see if I notice > the same thing happening. > > Matt > > _ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
[newbie] memory: leaks and fragmentations
I think my KDE has a memory leak, although I've not been able to find any info on the possibility at kde.org. When I first turn on the computer, KDE is using about 80MB, just now it was using 250MB (ouch!). I got those two numbers from gtop. The memory usage builds up slowly over time. I just shutdown kde and looked at my memory with top, and despite all the kde processes being gone the memory usage didn't drop by much at all. At runlevel 3 with X/kde shutdown, and nothing but top being ran by me directly, I had about 70MB free of my 384MB of memory. That just doesn't sound right. I thought I left memory fragmenting behind with the Macintosh :) Now, coming back into kde, kde is using about 150MB. A big improvement over 250MB, but still more than it seems like it should be using. I am using kde 2.2.1. I had 2.2.2 briefly installed and noted it did the same thing. Searching the net doesn't turn up much. It seems people think Linux handles memory ok :) I think I will start using gnome or iceWM for a while and see if I notice the same thing happening. Matt _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] memory buffering and disk defragmenter
> packages except games at the package selection prompt. At the video > settings I choose the normal 16 color with 600 * 800 without 3D > acceleration. If you have the resources (i.e., a modern video card with sufficient (>2 meg) video memory, you really should pick a higher resolution. X (and therefore kde) doesn't run well and looks particularly ugly with only 16 colors to choose from. KDE is fairly color-intense, which means that there simply won't be enough colors for all the stuff. (X allocates colors differently than what you might be used to - if say one app takes a particular shade of blue, that color is no longer available to any other app that you may want to run at the same time. > tell how much memory I have. It usually takes about 30mb for buffer and > leaves about 2 ~ 3 mb free. Free memory is wasted memory, and you'll find that if you open other apps, then some of the free memory (and some buffers) will be taken over by the other app. That there is ca. 30 megs in buffers when you boot into KDE is likely because the kernel's noticed all the disk activity inherent in loading up KDE up to the point where you can go to a konsole and type 'free'. > Would it take less memory if I try to disable some of the startup > services? Yes. KDE does take a lot of memory resources. You need at least 64megs to run it well, and 128 megs is desireable. > Eric David E. Fox Thanks for letting me [EMAIL PROTECTED]change magnetic patterns [EMAIL PROTECTED] on your hard disk. --- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] memory buffering and disk defragmenter
I am not sure where I did wrong... I usually use customized install option choosing developement settings. I let it install with most of the packages except games at the package selection prompt. At the video settings I choose the normal 16 color with 600 * 800 without 3D acceleration. I changed the file system and operating system option in the bios from windows 2000/Me to Others. And I have windowsMe on the first partition and ext on the second. I didn't put /boot so installed bootloader in MBR. I have two IDE one for CDROM and one for my Hardisk, and 128 - 2 mb ram (2 usually for the video card). I use the KDE -> Information -> Memory to tell how much memory I have. It usually takes about 30mb for buffer and leaves about 2 ~ 3 mb free. Would it take less memory if I try to disable some of the startup services? Thanks Eric On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, civileme wrote: > On Sunday 16 September 2001 04:59, Dave Sherman wrote: > > On Sat, 2001-09-15 at 21:41, Lin wrote: > > > hi, ever since I upgraded to Mandrake 7.2 I noticed the increase use of > > > buffering under KDE, but when I do open a new program such as netscape I > > > eventually ran out of memory and need to use disk swap - which the buffer > > > really doesn't help... could anyone help me on how to disable the memory > > > buffering under KDE? > > > > > How do you believe this is happening? Thiis seems more an interpretation of > data than the data itself. What steps did you take to notice this? If it is > a memory leak as you tend to describe here, it would be either a bad bug or s > seriously corrupted install. > > But linux uses memory and disk differently, so it may be only an > interpretation. Still, I did notice what appeared to be a memory leak which > was really a bad install not long ago. The computer involved had a WD and a > Maxtor on the same chanel and they were killing each other's data with timing > chatter. Separating the disks to different channels and reinstalling cured > the problem which had heretofore persisted through two reinstalls. > > Civileme > > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
RE: [newbie] memory buffering and disk defragmenter
You don't want to switch buffering off - the kernel will release the buffers as programs request memory. Linux also doesn't really need to use a defragmentation program either. If you do inisist on running it, read the man page VERY carefully and make sure the drive you are defragging is not mounted anywhere. Steve Flynn NOP Data Migration Ops Analyst * 01603 687386 -Original Message- From: Lin [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 2:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [newbie] memory buffering and disk defragmenter hi, ever since I upgraded to Mandrake 7.2 I noticed the increase use of buffering under KDE, but when I do open a new program such as netscape I eventually ran out of memory and need to use disk swap - which the buffer really doesn't help... could anyone help me on how to disable the memory buffering under KDE? My other question is that I tend to use disk defragmenter under windows, but after I switch over I realize I couldn't find anything like it under KDE... could anyone also help me how to run defragmenter with Mandrake? Thanks Eric << File: message.footer >> ** This email and any files sent with it are intended only for the named recipient. If you are not the named recipient please telephone/email the sender immediately. You should not disclose the content or take/retain/distribute any copies. ** Norwich Union Life & Pensions Limited Registered Office 2 Rougier Street York YO90 1UU Registered in England Number 3253947 A member of the Norwich Union Marketing Group which is regulated by the Personal Investment Authority. Member of the Association of British Insurers. For further Enquires 01603 622200 Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] memory buffering and disk defragmenter
On Sunday 16 September 2001 04:59, Dave Sherman wrote: > On Sat, 2001-09-15 at 21:41, Lin wrote: > > hi, ever since I upgraded to Mandrake 7.2 I noticed the increase use of > > buffering under KDE, but when I do open a new program such as netscape I > > eventually ran out of memory and need to use disk swap - which the buffer > > really doesn't help... could anyone help me on how to disable the memory > > buffering under KDE? > How do you believe this is happening? Thiis seems more an interpretation of data than the data itself. What steps did you take to notice this? If it is a memory leak as you tend to describe here, it would be either a bad bug or s seriously corrupted install. But linux uses memory and disk differently, so it may be only an interpretation. Still, I did notice what appeared to be a memory leak which was really a bad install not long ago. The computer involved had a WD and a Maxtor on the same chanel and they were killing each other's data with timing chatter. Separating the disks to different channels and reinstalling cured the problem which had heretofore persisted through two reinstalls. Civileme Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] memory buffering and disk defragmenter
> buffering under KDE, but when I do open a new program such as netscape I > eventually ran out of memory and need to use disk swap - which the buffer > really doesn't help... could anyone help me on how to disable the memory > buffering under KDE? There's no way to disable the buffering without rewriting the kernel, as it is a Linux function and has little to do with KDE. And I don't think you'd really want to. The buffers are just another memory resource, and linux will decrease the size of those buffers, turning the memory over to other processes as memory is requested -- as long as those applications aren't using the disk a lot for file reads/writes. Linux will try to balance the need for the buffers as disk usage (but non-swap disk usage) goes up and down. For instance, do a 'free' early in the morning after the nightly 'locate' jub runs, and you will likely see that your buffer usage according to 'free' is greater than 'normal'. And that's because the locate process does hit the disks pretty hard. But wait a while, or launch Netscape, and you will probably se that value go down. > > My other question is that I tend to use disk defragmenter under windows, > but after I switch over I realize I couldn't find anything like it under > KDE... could anyone also help me how to run defragmenter with Mandrake? Disk defragmentation is just not needed in Linux. > Eric David E. Fox Thanks for letting me [EMAIL PROTECTED]change magnetic patterns [EMAIL PROTECTED] on your hard disk. --- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] memory buffering and disk defragmenter
On Sat, 2001-09-15 at 21:41, Lin wrote: > > hi, ever since I upgraded to Mandrake 7.2 I noticed the increase use of > buffering under KDE, but when I do open a new program such as netscape I > eventually ran out of memory and need to use disk swap - which the buffer > really doesn't help... could anyone help me on how to disable the memory > buffering under KDE? Hmm... Don't know much about this. > My other question is that I tend to use disk defragmenter under windows, > but after I switch over I realize I couldn't find anything like it under > KDE... could anyone also help me how to run defragmenter with Mandrake? Linux uses a different filesystem than DOS/Win, called Ext2. This filesystem does not require "defragmenting", because Linux maintains it real-time. You may occasionally need to run the filesystem checker (fsck), but you will be prompted to do so -- don't worry about running manually. Fsck is something like scandisk. Dave PGP signature
[newbie] memory buffering and disk defragmenter
hi, ever since I upgraded to Mandrake 7.2 I noticed the increase use of buffering under KDE, but when I do open a new program such as netscape I eventually ran out of memory and need to use disk swap - which the buffer really doesn't help... could anyone help me on how to disable the memory buffering under KDE? My other question is that I tend to use disk defragmenter under windows, but after I switch over I realize I couldn't find anything like it under KDE... could anyone also help me how to run defragmenter with Mandrake? Thanks Eric Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory use
On Monday 09 July 2001 08:10, you wrote: > Would the amount of swap in use be a good benchmark to judge whether > your system would benefit from more RAM? I mean, if in normal use you > don't use any swap, then you have a very sufficient amount of RAM. Not necessarily. I have, for example, 256 megs of RAM, but often I find stuff in swap, maybe up to 50 megs or so. Under normal conditions I don't feel the need for having more RAM at present. Still, every time I've gotten new hardware or upgraded, I've always ended up getting more RAM all the time :). As a side issue: the original poster should get as much RAM as he can afford, without necessarily "going overboard". For my purposes, I bought 256, which I thought should be enough for what I do. Hopefully, I won't have to add more, but like everything else, will probably have to add more sometime down the road. Now back to the main point. Most systems run any number of deamon or other processes all the time. Most of these don't get a whole lot of use, but they still need memory, even if they are sleeping. Now, upon boot, you find that none of your swap is used, which is a good thing, otherwise your system is swapping during boot :). You start X and KDE ( or whatever) and that uses a little more. Still, no additions to swap, so far so good. Now comes along a need for a large amount of RAM. It could be Netscape growing leaps and bounds, or it could be a large compile, or whatever else. Suddenly, the system needs some additional memory, so it starts swapping some stuff -- and some of that are parts of those sleeping daemons I wrote about earlier. After a time you finish needing all that memory, but still you show some swap - and those are parts of programs that were swapped out earlier, of course. Inasmuch as some portions of that are parts of sleeping deamons, tnat part of swap may stay in swap indefinitely, without any harm to the system, and this in fact frees up more memory in case you need to do another thing that requires a large amount of memory. And the system won't suddenly swap in parts of programs even if there be room for them after you've closed down an application -- it would be wasteful of resources to bring back parts of sleeping processes, for instance. The memory is better served for other things. Only if you continually run things that cause excessive swapping do you really need to upgrade your memory. But adding more memory is usually one place where you can make your system faster and more responsive. > My system (with 128 MB of RAM) usually starts out using no swap but then > starts using more and more swap as time goes by (and as I use more / > different applications). That's par for the course. 128 might just be enough for you. The key I think is more (and different) applications. When you load an app, the os needs to find a place for it, obviously, and this might mean a couple of things -- that some stuff needs to be swapped out, in anticicipation of needing more memory, and that your buffers / free / cache memory will get smaller because the new app now needs part of these resources. And i fyou are using different applications more and more, there is going to be less common things that can remain in memory. -- David E. Fox Thanks for letting me [EMAIL PROTECTED]change magnetic patterns [EMAIL PROTECTED] on your hard disk. ---
RE: [newbie] Memory use
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anguo > Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 23:55 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [newbie] Memory use > > > ¦b 2001 ¤C¤ë 1 ¬P´Á¤é 23:01¡Acivileme ¼g¹D: > > linux makes an effort to keep almost all memory in use all the time > > (figuring unused memory is wasted memory), so it often finds memory > > errors right away that windows would totally miss. > > Civileme > > Oh! > You just replied a question I didn't ask! > :-) > > I just bought a new box and insisted on having 256Mb RAM (against > the advice > of a friend who said 128Mb would be enough). > After installing LM8.0, I noticed that most of the 256Mb were used, > confirming that I made the right choice, but I also wondered why > Linux would > precisely use the amount of RAM I had. > > I was thinking to wait that memory comes cheaper to add two 512Mb bars to > have a total of 1300Mb RAM. Would that make the system faster, > or would that > only be a waste of money? > (running on a AMD Duron 750Mhz, that I may upgrade to K7 1.4Mhz > sometime next > year) > I only run typical desktop single user applications (mail, internet...). > > > > Anguo > > P.S. : Even though this list is very busy, I do my best to read all the > messages. I learn a lot this way. > Thanks to everyone who ask questions (which are never stupid) and > thanks to > all those who take the time to reply... > Correct me if I am wrong, whoever is listening, but this is my theory: The kernl's memory map will configure the memory paging tables to utilize the Ram first, and then page to /swap when it needs extended frame storage. Therefore I think the simple answer is that the whatever RAM is available to the kernl, it will use, as it is that much less memory that is reqired from /swap. - tiny
Re: [newbie] Memory use
I'm running a Gig of Ram in my "Play-Station", and the only advantage is that OpenOffice opens right smartly! Other than that, everything runs normally. Dan On July 9, 2001 09:03 am, you wrote: > On Sunday 08 July 2001 10:54 pm, Anguo wrote: > > I just bought a new box and insisted on having 256Mb RAM (against the > > advice of a friend who said 128Mb would be enough). > > After installing LM8.0, I noticed that most of the 256Mb were used, > > confirming that I made the right choice, but I also wondered why > > Linux would precisely use the amount of RAM I had. > > 256 is plenty, and was a good choice considering how cheap ram is. > Linux is only 'using' most all your ram in the sense that it allocates > it to cache and buffer. It's still free for use tho. > > total used free sharedbuffers > Mem:255752 252508 3244 0 21460 > cached 124616 > -/+ buffers/cache: 106432 149320 > Swap: 401552140 401412 > > In the ex. above, if you just look at the first line, it appears > that all of 256mb but 3 is being used. It is, but not really, it's > still ready for use by procceses and apps. -/+ buffers/cache: shows > that 106mb is in use, 149 are free'n ready. > > > I was thinking to wait that memory comes cheaper to add two 512Mb > > bars to have a total of 1300Mb RAM. Would that make the system > > faster, or would that only be a waste of money? > > You don't need more'n the 256 you've got. If you go over 1gig, > you'll need a different kernel.
Re: [newbie] Memory use
GNU/Linux uses spare RAM to cache your hard drive, the slowest part of any system. Generally, the more RAM you have the better, since you'll have a larger cache. However, I believe the law of diminishing returns would begin to kick in well before the 1300MB mark. This, of course depends on what you do with your system. If you do a lot of multimedia work, then a lot of RAM is essential. For ordinary web browsing and the like, this much RAM would make little difference. With that in mind, I don't think this much RAM could really harm your system, and RAM is quite cheap nowadays. However, if you plan to upgrade later you need to consider forwards-compatibility of the RAM. The newer Athlons are using DDR SDRAM, so any SDR SDRAM you have will become useless (you'd just be crippling your system if you used it). On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 13:54, Anguo wrote: > 在 2001 七月 1 星期日 23:01，civileme 寫道: > > linux makes an effort to keep almost all memory in use all the time > > (figuring unused memory is wasted memory), so it often finds memory > > errors right away that windows would totally miss. > > Civileme > > Oh! > You just replied a question I didn't ask! > > :-) > > I just bought a new box and insisted on having 256Mb RAM (against the > advice of a friend who said 128Mb would be enough). > After installing LM8.0, I noticed that most of the 256Mb were used, > confirming that I made the right choice, but I also wondered why Linux > would precisely use the amount of RAM I had. > > I was thinking to wait that memory comes cheaper to add two 512Mb bars to > have a total of 1300Mb RAM. Would that make the system faster, or would > that only be a waste of money? > (running on a AMD Duron 750Mhz, that I may upgrade to K7 1.4Mhz sometime > next year) > I only run typical desktop single user applications (mail, internet...). > > > > Anguo > > P.S. : Even though this list is very busy, I do my best to read all the > messages. I learn a lot this way. > Thanks to everyone who ask questions (which are never stupid) and thanks to > all those who take the time to reply... -- Sridhar Dhanapalan. "There are two major products that come from Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence." -- Jeremy S. Anderson
[newbie] Memory use
¦b 2001 ¤C¤ë 1 ¬P´Á¤é 23:01¡Acivileme ¼g¹D: > linux makes an effort to keep almost all memory in use all the time > (figuring unused memory is wasted memory), so it often finds memory > errors right away that windows would totally miss. > Civileme Oh! You just replied a question I didn't ask! :-) I just bought a new box and insisted on having 256Mb RAM (against the advice of a friend who said 128Mb would be enough). After installing LM8.0, I noticed that most of the 256Mb were used, confirming that I made the right choice, but I also wondered why Linux would precisely use the amount of RAM I had. I was thinking to wait that memory comes cheaper to add two 512Mb bars to have a total of 1300Mb RAM. Would that make the system faster, or would that only be a waste of money? (running on a AMD Duron 750Mhz, that I may upgrade to K7 1.4Mhz sometime next year) I only run typical desktop single user applications (mail, internet...). Anguo P.S. : Even though this list is very busy, I do my best to read all the messages. I learn a lot this way. Thanks to everyone who ask questions (which are never stupid) and thanks to all those who take the time to reply...
[newbie] Memory setting
Hi! I have 192M memory in my computer but the linux can see only 64M. How can I solve this problem? As far as I know I have to edit the lilo.conf file, but I need more precise information about it 'cause I really a begginer! Thanx in advance - Szaky -
Re: [newbie] Memory Miss reported and shutdownd command
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 11:41:07 +,Dennis wrote: >showing only 64 M of memory on boot up and in control panel. I went into lilo >and did the append="mem=256" and still no change. The MoBo shows the correct >amount of memory on boot -- Sun, 28 Jan 2001 16:20:42 I don't think your append line is written correctly Dennis..you need a "M" ..if I remember correctly? Olly P Biloxi
Re: [newbie] Memory Miss reported and shutdownd command
Dennis Myers wrote: > Hi folks, I have become frustrated again. I had to > reinstall 7.2 after a power outage and the UPS didn't last > long enough so Anyway now that I have reinstalled > and upgraded KDE to 2.1 beta 1 I have the old problem of > showing only 64 M of memory on boot up and in control > panel. I went into lilo and did the append="mem=256" and > still no change. The MoBo shows the correct amount of > memory on boot. What am I missing here? Speaking of boot, > when I shutdown it goes through the list of oks and then > right at the end a seg fault. I have gone to > etc/rc.d/init.d/halt and at the very end of the script > deleted the -p. This worked in 7.1 but in 7.2 it halts on > "quota" and I don't get a clean disk dismount. Have to go > through the check forced rigmarole for hdc1 and hdc6. Help > or suggestions for either problem would be appreciated. DennisI believe that you're telling Linux that you have 256k of memory with the append line as it is reproduced above. :-) -- Alan
[newbie] Memory Miss reported and shutdownd command
Hi folks, I have become frustrated again. I had to reinstall 7.2 after a power outage and the UPS didn't last long enough so Anyway now that I have reinstalled and upgraded KDE to 2.1 beta 1 I have the old problem of showing only 64 M of memory on boot up and in control panel. I went into lilo and did the append="mem=256" and still no change. The MoBo shows the correct amount of memory on boot. What am I missing here? Speaking of boot, when I shutdown it goes through the list of oks and then right at the end a seg fault. I have gone to etc/rc.d/init.d/halt and at the very end of the script deleted the -p. This worked in 7.1 but in 7.2 it halts on "quota" and I don't get a clean disk dismount. Have to go through the check forced rigmarole for hdc1 and hdc6. Help or suggestions for either problem would be appreciated. -- Dennis M. Registered Linux user #180842
RE: [newbie] Memory Question
Thanks for the info. I tried using hdparm, but that really did not help make it any faster. Timing tests revealed that altering the settings did not really improve the performace. However I did learn that sometimes somethings can be done with hdparm. --Surya -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tom Brinkman Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 8:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [newbie] Memory Question On Monday 22 January 2001 08:11 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I have ML7.2 installed on my machine. I have about 128MB of RAM. > After I log in if I see the mem occupancy using either Hard Drake or > xsysinfo or one of the other X-utils, I see that only about 4-12 Megs > appear to be free. Consequently the machine is horribly slow. > Agreed that I am doing this on an old Cyrix 6X86 200MHz processor. > But I still feel that 128 Megs ought to make the machine atleast > launch an X-term quickly. > Any idea why the machine is this slow? (in an Xterm): 'free' total used free sharedbuffers cached Mem:255484 252656 2828 0 18276 60408 -/+ buffers/cache: 173972 81512 Swap: 184676 0 184676 You misunderstand memory usage. In my example above, I have very little 'Mem' shown as free, but that's because Linux is keeping 80mb available in 'buffers/cache'. That memory is readily available to any app that needs it. Memory handling is much different (and much better) than with Windoze. If you're not using a lot of swap (-0- in my example above), the slowness is prob'ly your hardware, particularly that Cyrix cpu. Have you used 'hdparm' to optimize your HDD's ? -- Tom Brinkman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Galveston Bay
Re: [newbie] Memory Question
On Monday 22 January 2001 08:11 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I have ML7.2 installed on my machine. I have about 128MB of RAM. > After I log in if I see the mem occupancy using either Hard Drake or > xsysinfo or one of the other X-utils, I see that only about 4-12 Megs > appear to be free. Consequently the machine is horribly slow. > Agreed that I am doing this on an old Cyrix 6X86 200MHz processor. > But I still feel that 128 Megs ought to make the machine atleast > launch an X-term quickly. > Any idea why the machine is this slow? (in an Xterm): 'free' total used free sharedbuffers cached Mem:255484 252656 2828 0 18276 60408 -/+ buffers/cache: 173972 81512 Swap: 184676 0 184676 You misunderstand memory usage. In my example above, I have very little 'Mem' shown as free, but that's because Linux is keeping 80mb available in 'buffers/cache'. That memory is readily available to any app that needs it. Memory handling is much different (and much better) than with Windoze. If you're not using a lot of swap (-0- in my example above), the slowness is prob'ly your hardware, particularly that Cyrix cpu. Have you used 'hdparm' to optimize your HDD's ? -- Tom Brinkman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Galveston Bay
[newbie] Memory Question
I have ML7.2 installed on my machine. I have about 128MB of RAM. After I log in if I see the mem occupancy using either Hard Drake or xsysinfo or one of the other X-utils, I see that only about 4-12 Megs appear to be free. Consequently the machine is horribly slow. Agreed that I am doing this on an old Cyrix 6X86 200MHz processor. But I still feel that 128 Megs ought to make the machine atleast launch an X-term quickly. Any idea why the machine is this slow? Thanks in advance Surya
Re: [[newbie] memory Size]
"Michael (Nozy) Falzon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi All > How do i fix the memory size on a mandrak 7.2 ( i have 256mg of > ram ) and she showing up as 64 == Edit /etc/lilo.conf There should be an append line. Make it read: append="mem=256M" HTH, Mike "Many loads of beer were brought. What disorder, whoring, fighting, killing and dreadful idolatry took place there!" Baltasar Rusow, Estonia, 16th century Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://home.netscape.com/webmail
Re: [newbie] memory Size
On install, you should have specified how much mem you had, but if you didn't, go into drakconf and go into tools for booting, and from there go to configure LILO/GRUB then click the kernel you load on a normal bootup. And in the append box type mem=256M and make sure its the first one in the box. Regards, var1x "Michael (Nozy) Falzon" wrote: > > Hi All > How do i fix the memory size on a mandrak 7.2 ( i have 256mg of > ram ) and she showing up as 64 > > Michael Falzon > Mozy's Swamp BBs & Red Dwarf BBs > +61 3 93314369 BBs and Fax > +61 3 93314368 BBs > +61409967695Help Desk 24/7 > > http://mozysswamp.yi.org > telnet://mozysswamp.yi.org > > FidoNet Number 3:634/384 > BloodNet Number 53:100/101 > GameLink Number 50:100/103 > Xpresit Number 782:101/102 > > Gremlin Consltancy P/L > Phone : (+61 03) 9315 3855 > Fax : (+61 03) 9302 > Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- |---| Peter Marks E-Mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ:46202991 http;//www.tweeterindustries.net |---|
Re: [newbie] memory Size
On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Joseph Red wrote: >Hmm, in LILO I think you can pass it MEM=256, but I don't think 7.2 uses >LILO. I would look into the boot loader options, though. >> Hi All >> How do i fix the memory size on a mandrak 7.2 ( i have 256mg of >> ram ) and she showing up as 64 The gory details are available on http://nlpagan.net/linux.htm Also for Grub. And 7.2 does use Lilo as well... (Yea, I am lazy. I am a programmer ;) Paul -- Two is not equal to three, even for large values of two. http://nlpagan.net - ICQ 147208 - Registered Linux User 174403 Linux Mandrake 7.2 - Pine 4.31
Re: [newbie] memory Size
Edit the grub command line. At the end add: mem=256M This seems to be a common problem - it's a fault in the BIOS and the way it reports memory to the operating system, rather than a problem with Linux. Chris - Original Message - From: "Michael (Nozy) Falzon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 7:27 AM Subject: [newbie] memory Size > Hi All > How do i fix the memory size on a mandrak 7.2 ( i have 256mg of > ram ) and she showing up as 64 > > Michael Falzon > Mozy's Swamp BBs & Red Dwarf BBs > +61 3 93314369 BBs and Fax > +61 3 93314368 BBs > +61409967695Help Desk 24/7 > > http://mozysswamp.yi.org > telnet://mozysswamp.yi.org > > FidoNet Number 3:634/384 > BloodNet Number 53:100/101 > GameLink Number 50:100/103 > Xpresit Number 782:101/102 > > Gremlin Consltancy P/L > Phone : (+61 03) 9315 3855 > Fax : (+61 03) 9302 > Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >
Re: [newbie] memory Size
Hmm, in LILO I think you can pass it MEM=256, but I don't think 7.2 uses LILO. I would look into the boot loader options, though. Joseph Red [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Michael (Nozy) Falzon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 1:27 AM Subject: [newbie] memory Size > Hi All > How do i fix the memory size on a mandrak 7.2 ( i have 256mg of > ram ) and she showing up as 64 > > Michael Falzon > Mozy's Swamp BBs & Red Dwarf BBs > +61 3 93314369 BBs and Fax > +61 3 93314368 BBs > +61409967695Help Desk 24/7 > > http://mozysswamp.yi.org > telnet://mozysswamp.yi.org > > FidoNet Number 3:634/384 > BloodNet Number 53:100/101 > GameLink Number 50:100/103 > Xpresit Number 782:101/102 > > Gremlin Consltancy P/L > Phone : (+61 03) 9315 3855 > Fax : (+61 03) 9302 > Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >
[newbie] memory Size
Hi All How do i fix the memory size on a mandrak 7.2 ( i have 256mg of ram ) and she showing up as 64 Michael Falzon Mozy's Swamp BBs & Red Dwarf BBs +61 3 93314369 BBs and Fax +61 3 93314368 BBs +61409967695Help Desk 24/7 http://mozysswamp.yi.org telnet://mozysswamp.yi.org FidoNet Number 3:634/384 BloodNet Number 53:100/101 GameLink Number 50:100/103 Xpresit Number 782:101/102 Gremlin Consltancy P/L Phone : (+61 03) 9315 3855 Fax : (+61 03) 9302 Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [newbie] Memory (was re-booting)
2000-09-26. Incoming bitstream from [EMAIL PROTECTED]: >Thanks for the help on my rebooting during install and during use of >7.0. I think I have tracked down *what* the problem is, so if you could >offer some pointers on how to fix it :) The problem seems to be lack of >memory.. I have 128meg ram, but this is what lothar 0.5.3 is showing: >Total: 14MB >Used: 12 MB Hmm. This is not much. DO you use lilo to boot? If yes, add append="mem=128M" to /etc/lilo.conf (as root), run lilo (still as root) and reboot. Otherwise see man grub, you can find in there how to update menu.lst Paul -- Q: Why is there no such organization as Chocoholics Anonymous? A: Because no one wants to quit. http://nlpagan.net - ICQ 147208 - Registered Linux User 174403 -=PINE 4.21 on Linux Mandrake 7.1=-
[newbie] memory and graphics problems
i have mandrake 7.0 and i have 160mb of ram and a riva tnt2 m64 graphics card: Now, can anyone tell me how to get my system to notice i have 160 mb of ram 1. i installed it with linux4win so i dont think there is a lilo.conf file i haven't found it yet! 2. i cant upgrade my version of xfree86 to xfree86-4.0.1 it just says that my version of kpackage is only made to take up to version 3. any help wold be appreciated. ADAM. "If God gave me this gift, Can I give it back?":- STIGMATA
Re: [newbie] Memory detection problem
I just installed Mandrake 7.1 and then ran the helixcode gnome installer. Everything seems to be working fine, expect that neither DrakConf nor RPMDrak will run. On a related note I tried to install OpenSSH (which I downloaded from one of the mandrake mirrors) but I'm told that RPMLIB is missing. I used the webmin RPM tool to try and install some RPMs and I did seem to properly install one RPM (the OpenSSL RPM) but when I went to install the OpenSSH package I get: Install failed: error: failed dependencies: rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1 is needed by openssh-2.1.1p3-2mdk Any ideas what I'm missing? Anyone know if these two problems are related? Thanks, Philip
