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
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
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
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.
silly mode on
1 M of memory? I don't
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
.
--
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
-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
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
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
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
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,
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
: 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
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
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==MR=%3Cb%3EMemory+%2D+Mwave%3C%2Fb%3E=ProdMR-MW.hmx
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 -
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.
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
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
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
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
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?
, 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-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
¦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!
:-)
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 -
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
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
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
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 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.
: [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
"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
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 2
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
1 - 100 of 170 matches
Mail list logo
