Andrew Lyon wrote:
> On 6/7/07, H. Peter Anvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Andrew Lyon wrote:
>> >
>> > Could this also cause a system to be unstable? my abit athlon64 at
>> > work will not run x64 with more than 1gb ram, and i have a colo server
>> > with supermicro & 2 x dual core xeons that wi
Andrew Lyon wrote:
>
> I have run memtest86+ for days at a time on both systems with no errors
> at all.
>
> broken hardware i guess, i am not surprised about the abit board, ive
> had nothing but trouble with abit motherboards and do not use them any
> more, but the supermicro is a xeon server b
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 02:48:50AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> Ugh, no! How can we expect the user compiling a kernel to be *so*
> familiar with address space re-mapping / BIOSen (_his_ particular
> BIOS, specifically, and what / how it re-maps memory) / etc to be
> able to answer such questions?
On 6/7/07, H. Peter Anvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew Lyon wrote:
>
> Could this also cause a system to be unstable? my abit athlon64 at
> work will not run x64 with more than 1gb ram, and i have a colo server
> with supermicro & 2 x dual core xeons that will not run with more than
> 2gb.
>
Andrew Lyon wrote:
>
> Could this also cause a system to be unstable? my abit athlon64 at
> work will not run x64 with more than 1gb ram, and i have a colo server
> with supermicro & 2 x dual core xeons that will not run with more than
> 2gb.
>
> Both systems have long uptimes but if i add ram th
This looks like it would have probably given me the hint I needed. Can
I also suggest that you make a change to arch/i386/kernel/setup.c, line 296:
if (max_pfn > MAX_NONPAE_PFN) {
max_pfn = MAX_NONPAE_PFN;
printk(KERN_WARNING "Warning
Satyam Sharma wrote:
On 6/6/07, Lennart Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
A better description would be:
"Select this if you have a 32-bit processor and memory mapped in the 1GB
to 4GB address range."
[...]
That one would be better as:
"Select this if you have a 32-bit processor and
On Jun 7 2007 02:48, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> On 6/6/07, Lennart Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [...]
>> A better description would be:
>>
>> "Select this if you have a 32-bit processor and memory mapped in the 1GB
>> to 4GB address range."
>> [...]
>> That one would be better as:
>>
>> "S
Andrew Lyon wrote:
Could this also cause a system to be unstable? my abit athlon64 at
work will not run x64 with more than 1gb ram, and i have a colo server
with supermicro & 2 x dual core xeons that will not run with more than
2gb.
Both systems have long uptimes but if i add ram they crash with
On 6/6/07, H. Peter Anvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
>
> Seems like an improvement to me. To fully explain how it could be 3 or
> 3.5 or 3.25 or who knows how many GB you can actually use without PAE
> would probably require writing a small novel. Certainly talking about
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
>
> Seems like an improvement to me. To fully explain how it could be 3 or
> 3.5 or 3.25 or who knows how many GB you can actually use without PAE
> would probably require writing a small novel. Certainly talking about
> address space instead of amounts of physical memory
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 02:12:22PM +0200, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> > Change the description of CONFIG_*HIGHMEM* to reflect "lost" memory due to
> > PCI space and the existence of the NX flag.
> >
> > Signed-Off-By: Bodo Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > ---
> > I made this quic
On 6/6/07, Lennart Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
A better description would be:
"Select this if you have a 32-bit processor and memory mapped in the 1GB
to 4GB address range."
[...]
That one would be better as:
"Select this if you have a 32-bit processor and ram mapped in the addres
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 02:12:22PM +0200, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> Change the description of CONFIG_*HIGHMEM* to reflect "lost" memory due to
> PCI space and the existence of the NX flag.
>
> Signed-Off-By: Bodo Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
> I made this quick patch using the information from LKM
Change the description of CONFIG_*HIGHMEM* to reflect "lost" memory due to
PCI space and the existence of the NX flag.
Signed-Off-By: Bodo Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
I made this quick patch using the information from LKML as I remembered
it. Please verify.
--- 2.6.21/arch/i386/Kconfig.ori
Tom Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi everyone.
>
> I am having some difficulty trying to get my 4Gb of ram recognized by
This really seems to become a FAQ recently. Please look in the archives.
In short your BIOS is broken. Complain to your BIOS vendor.
Anyone interested to write up some
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 03:43:08PM -0400, Tom Moore wrote:
> Thank you for the reply back. Your answer makes perfect sense to me,
> and it is what I had suspected but was not sure about. The math seems
> to indicate that 4Gb of ram plus 1Gb of PCI address space equals 5Gb of
> memory space. S
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 09:12:00AM -0400, Tom Moore wrote:
> Ok, so it appears that this one is wrong also. If someone could explain
> the rules that apply, I would be happy to prepare a patch to the Kconfig
> script. I don't consider myself to be completely stupid, and if the
> help text was a
Wakko Warner wrote:
Tom Moore wrote:
Thank you for the reply back. Your answer makes perfect sense to me,
and it is what I had suspected but was not sure about. The math seems
to indicate that 4Gb of ram plus 1Gb of PCI address space equals 5Gb of
memory space. So it does sound like I
Tom Moore wrote:
> Thank you for the reply back. Your answer makes perfect sense to me,
> and it is what I had suspected but was not sure about. The math seems
> to indicate that 4Gb of ram plus 1Gb of PCI address space equals 5Gb of
> memory space. So it does sound like I should have a large
Thank you for the reply back. Your answer makes perfect sense to me,
and it is what I had suspected but was not sure about. The math seems
to indicate that 4Gb of ram plus 1Gb of PCI address space equals 5Gb of
memory space. So it does sound like I should have a larger kernel model.
What co
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 11:14:40AM -0400, Tom Moore wrote:
> I am having some difficulty trying to get my 4Gb of ram recognized by
> the system. I have tried googling around to get some information on how
> to do this configuration, but I have come up dry. I suspect that the
> reason that ther
22 matches
Mail list logo
