I see it's a faq, but it's not a faq!

I see it's a faq, but it's not a faq!

Post by Christopher L. Coo » Tue, 19 May 1998 04:00:00



I've searched through dejanews, and seen a lot of people asking the
generally similar question, but nobody is answering it.  So, now it's my
turn to post and ask, hoping that the others have been responded to over
email rather than usenet...   I'm trying to install RedHat 4.2 on a beat up
486 I bought.  I has a 129Mb HDD, 486SX, and 4 megs of ram.  When I boot off
of the RH boot disk I get this message (these are the last lines):

RAMDISK: Compressed image found at block 0
out of memoryVFS: Cannot open root device 08:02
Kernel panic: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on 08:02

So, my specific question is, what's going on here?  And my general question
is, where would I go to look up the error codes?  i.e., the 02 means IDE
HDD, 06 is a SCSI HDD, 05 is a network card...  whatever.  Is this listed
anywhere??

Thanks a lot, I can't wait to get this running!

-CLC
--

Christopher L. Cook

 
 
 

I see it's a faq, but it's not a faq!

Post by Charles Cla » Tue, 19 May 1998 04:00:00




[..]

Quote:>email rather than usenet...   I'm trying to install RedHat 4.2 on a beat up
>486 I bought.  I has a 129Mb HDD, 486SX, and 4 megs of ram.  When I boot off
>of the RH boot disk I get this message (these are the last lines):

>RAMDISK: Compressed image found at block 0
>out of memoryVFS: Cannot open root device 08:02
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Kernel panic: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on 08:02

4 MB is not enough RAM to install Redhat, and probably not enough to
run it either.  You can barely install Slackware with 4 MB RAM, though
it will run (sort of) OK from the CLI.

Take your alumnium cans in to be recycled and use the cash to buy some
more RAM :)  If you really want to use Redhat (and therefore X), that's
going to be quite a few nickels, I'm afraid.

Good luck!


 
 
 

I see it's a faq, but it's not a faq!

Post by Christopher L. Coo » Tue, 19 May 1998 04:00:00


Are you kidding???  4 MB isn't enough to install Redhat???  I thought one of
Linux's claim to fame was that it needed almost no ram to run at all.  I
don't plan on running X, just services from the prompt.  I really can't
install it in 4?  So, what is Linux's minimum then?  I used to run Slackware
on my old 486 (which I no longer have) and I'll admit I don't remember how
much memory I had on it, probably at least 8...  Anyway, this machine is an
IBM PS/1, with 2 memory slots (72 pin) one of which is filled with a chip.
I've never seen this:  My old 486 had 8 slots for 30 pin SIMMs, which I
think had to be filled in 4's.  I've got a Pentium now that of course takes
72 pin SIMMs and needs to be populated in pairs.  I've never seen a machine
that took 72 pin SIMMs and was populated individually.  Anyway, that leads
me to my question:  Can I put a regular 72 pin SIMM for a pentium into my
beat up 486 and have it recognized and run?  I've got 72 pin simms, I just
thought that 486's needed to be populated in 4s, or at least 2s.  Anyway,
thanks for the reply.  I just can't believe it -- one of the prime reasons
for running Linux is gone.

:(

-CLC

--

Christopher L. Cook




>[..]
>>email rather than usenet...   I'm trying to install RedHat 4.2 on a beat
up
>>486 I bought.  I has a 129Mb HDD, 486SX, and 4 megs of ram.  When I boot
off
>>of the RH boot disk I get this message (these are the last lines):

>>RAMDISK: Compressed image found at block 0
>>out of memoryVFS: Cannot open root device 08:02
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Kernel panic: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on 08:02

>4 MB is not enough RAM to install Redhat, and probably not enough to
>run it either.  You can barely install Slackware with 4 MB RAM, though
>it will run (sort of) OK from the CLI.

>Take your alumnium cans in to be recycled and use the cash to buy some
>more RAM :)  If you really want to use Redhat (and therefore X), that's
>going to be quite a few nickels, I'm afraid.

>Good luck!


 
 
 

I see it's a faq, but it's not a faq!

Post by James R. Bunc » Tue, 19 May 1998 04:00:00



: RAMDISK: Compressed image found at block 0
: out of memoryVFS: Cannot open root device 08:02
: Kernel panic: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on 08:02

: So, my specific question is, what's going on here?  And my general question
: is, where would I go to look up the error codes?  i.e., the 02 means IDE
: HDD, 06 is a SCSI HDD, 05 is a network card...  whatever.  Is this listed
: anywhere??

Looks as if the kernel is panicking when it attempts to mount SCSI disk #1
partition #2 as the root device.  That's what a major:minor code of 08:02
indicates.

The main problem, however, is probably lack of ram.  You say you have 4 Megs
installed.  Uncompressed the kernel takes a Meg or more.  The default
size for a RAMDISK is 4 Megs.  Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

Once you have linux up and running do an ls -l /dev | less  and you'll see
all the major:minor device codes where the file size would be in a
listing for a regular file.

HTH

--
-----------------------------
James R. Bunch         "A Byte is a terrible thing to waste ...

PGP Key available via finger
PGP Key fingerprint =  B5 31 10 77 BF B0 FD B2  10 54 CB E6 13 7C 26 58
------------------------------

 
 
 

I see it's a faq, but it's not a faq!

Post by j.. » Tue, 19 May 1998 04:00:00




Quote:>Are you kidding???  4 MB isn't enough to install Redhat???

Alas, no.

Quote:>I thought one of
>Linux's claim to fame was that it needed almost no ram to run at all.

By the standard of some systems 4M *is* "almost no ram".

Quote:>I don't plan on running X, just services from the prompt.  I really can't
>install it in 4?

You can't *install* it in 4.  It'll run perfectly happily in 4.

Quote:>So, what is Linux's minimum then?

I've run it very well in 3M.  There's a project around (sorry, the name
escapes me for the moment) which specialises in small-system installations.
ISTR their minimum RAM is under 1M.

John
--
John Winters.  Wallingford, Oxon, England.

The Linux Emporium - a source for Linux CDs in the UK
See <http://www.polo.demon.co.uk/emporium.html>

 
 
 

I see it's a faq, but it's not a faq!

Post by Clive Clomsbarro » Tue, 19 May 1998 04:00:00



[...]

Quote:> RAMDISK: Compressed image found at block 0
> out of memoryVFS: Cannot open root device 08:02
> Kernel panic: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on 08:02

> So, my specific question is, what's going on here?  And my general question
> is, where would I go to look up the error codes?  i.e., the 02 means IDE
> HDD, 06 is a SCSI HDD, 05 is a network card...  whatever.  Is this listed
> anywhere??

4 MB is real small, but I think I've heard of folks doing it.
Sounds like you need to get a smaller kernel.  Slackware might
have some small kernels to use, or maybe someone at your local
User Group can build you one.  I don't know that that's your
problem though, so get another opinion.

The 08:02 seems to be a "device number" (major:minor) which are
described in /usr/src/linux/Documentation/devices.{txt|tex}
and can be seen with "ls -la /dev".

brw-rw----   1 root     disk       8,   2 Sep 12  1994 /dev/sda2

Since you don't have a running Linux, you can't do this, I suppose
you'd have to search the net to find the devices.txt file.  It's
in my 1995 Linux Bible, but not in my 1996 Linux Encyclopedia.

 
 
 

I see it's a faq, but it's not a faq!

Post by Clive Clomsbarro » Tue, 19 May 1998 04:00:00



Quote:> Are you kidding???  4 MB isn't enough to install Redhat???  I thought one of
> Linux's claim to fame was that it needed almost no ram to run at all.  I
> don't plan on running X, just services from the prompt.  I really can't
> install it in 4?  So, what is Linux's minimum then?  I used to run Slackware
> on my old 486 (which I no longer have) and I'll admit I don't remember how
> much memory I had on it, probably at least 8...  Anyway, this machine is an
> IBM PS/1, with 2 memory slots (72 pin) one of which is filled with a chip.
> I've never seen this:  My old 486 had 8 slots for 30 pin SIMMs, which I
> think had to be filled in 4's.  I've got a Pentium now that of course takes
> 72 pin SIMMs and needs to be populated in pairs.  I've never seen a machine
> that took 72 pin SIMMs and was populated individually.  Anyway, that leads
> me to my question:  Can I put a regular 72 pin SIMM for a pentium into my
> beat up 486 and have it recognized and run?  I've got 72 pin simms, I just
> thought that 486's needed to be populated in 4s, or at least 2s.  Anyway,
> thanks for the reply.  I just can't believe it -- one of the prime reasons
> for running Linux is gone.

The Red Hat 5.0 box says 8 MB.

I thought it was 30 pin in 4s, 72 pin in 2s, and 168 pin in 1s.
I've only used the 30 pinners, so correct me if I'm wrong please.

 
 
 

I see it's a faq, but it's not a faq!

Post by Richard Stein » Wed, 20 May 1998 04:00:00



spake unto us, saying:

Quote:>Are you kidding???  4 MB isn't enough to install Redhat???

4MB is not enough to install later versions of Red Hat.  Correct.  The
box for Red Hat 5.0 (Official) says 8MB minimum.

Quote:>I thought one of Linux's claim to fame was that it needed almost no ram
>to run at all.

True for the kernel, but Red Hat is only one of a large number of Linux
distributions, and I think that its installation requirements are a bit
heavier than that of many other distributions because it tends to default
to more user-friendly (and hence graphical) tools.

Possibly not a good choice given your system's limitations.

FWIW, Slackware 3.2 said it would install in 4MB, so perhaps Slackware
3.4 is a similar size.

--

           OS/2 Warp 4 + Linux + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
                   The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.

 
 
 

I see it's a faq, but it's not a faq!

Post by M. Buchenried » Wed, 20 May 1998 04:00:00



Quote:>I've searched through dejanews, and seen a lot of people asking the
>generally similar question, but nobody is answering it.  So, now it's my
>turn to post and ask, hoping that the others have been responded to over
>email rather than usenet...   I'm trying to install RedHat 4.2 on a beat up
>486 I bought.  I has a 129Mb HDD, 486SX, and 4 megs of ram.  When I boot off

                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Quote:>of the RH boot disk I get this message (these are the last lines):
>RAMDISK: Compressed image found at block 0
>out of memory

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
VFS: Cannot open root device 08:02

Quote:>Kernel panic: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on 08:02

[...]

You'll need a different distribution. RH4.x and above will not install with
only 4 MB of physical RAM. It will run on 4 MB, once you successfully
installed it, though. Either get some more RAM, or look at the tiny-Linux
approach.

Michael
--

       Lumber Cartel Unit #456 (TINLC) and Official Net.Scum

 
 
 

I see it's a faq, but it's not a faq!

Post by James Youngma » Wed, 20 May 1998 04:00:00


  john> I've run it very well in 3M.  There's a project around (sorry,
  john> the name escapes me for the moment) which specialises in
  john> small-system installations.  ISTR their minimum RAM is under
  john> 1M.

ELKS.

 
 
 

I see it's a faq, but it's not a faq!

Post by Alexander Vi » Wed, 20 May 1998 04:00:00




Quote:>Are you kidding???  4 MB isn't enough to install Redhat???  I thought one of
                                                  ^^^^^^
>Linux's claim to fame was that it needed almost no ram to run at all.  I
 ^^^^^
>don't plan on running X, just services from the prompt.

 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

All right, Linux can run on 4M. But RedHat folks dropped in a lot of
luser-friendly GUI lossage. Which is the main reason of their popularity,
BTW.*RedHat and install something less {memory-,}sucking.

--
My theory is that someone's Emacs crashed on a very early version of Linux
while reading alt.flame and the resulting unholy combination of Elisp and
Minix code somehow managed to bootstrap itself and take on an independent
existence.      -- James Raynard in c.u.b.f.m on nature of Albert Cahalan

 
 
 

I see it's a faq, but it's not a faq!

Post by Richie Biela » Thu, 21 May 1998 04:00:00



> Are you kidding???  4 MB isn't enough to install Redhat???  I thought one of
> Linux's claim to fame was that it needed almost no ram to run at all.  I
> don't plan on running X, just services from the prompt.  I really can't
> install it in 4?  So, what is Linux's minimum then?  I used to run Slackware
> on my old 486 (which I no longer have) and I'll admit I don't remember how
> much memory I had on it, probably at least 8...  Anyway, this machine is an
> IBM PS/1, with 2 memory slots (72 pin) one of which is filled with a chip.
> I've never seen this:  My old 486 had 8 slots for 30 pin SIMMs, which I
> think had to be filled in 4's.  I've got a Pentium now that of course takes
> 72 pin SIMMs and needs to be populated in pairs.  I've never seen a machine
> that took 72 pin SIMMs and was populated individually.  Anyway, that leads
> me to my question:  Can I put a regular 72 pin SIMM for a pentium into my
> beat up 486 and have it recognized and run?  I've got 72 pin simms, I just
> thought that 486's needed to be populated in 4s, or at least 2s.  Anyway,
> thanks for the reply.  I just can't believe it -- one of the prime reasons
> for running Linux is gone.

Debian has a "low-memory" installation set up. Take a look at

        http://www.debian.org

it is supposed to work with systems of 4Megs or less. You
should be able to download the basic system - it only
takes up 7 floppies.

...richie

 
 
 

I see it's a faq, but it's not a faq!

Post by Kevin McMilla » Thu, 21 May 1998 04:00:00





> >Are you kidding???  4 MB isn't enough to install Redhat???  I thought one of
>                                                   ^^^^^^
> >Linux's claim to fame was that it needed almost no ram to run at all.  I
>  ^^^^^
> >don't plan on running X, just services from the prompt.
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> All right, Linux can run on 4M. But RedHat folks dropped in a lot of
> luser-friendly GUI lossage. Which is the main reason of their popularity,
> BTW.*RedHat and install something less {memory-,}sucking.

> --
> My theory is that someone's Emacs crashed on a very early version of Linux
> while reading alt.flame and the resulting unholy combination of Elisp and
> Minix code somehow managed to bootstrap itself and take on an independent
> existence.      -- James Raynard in c.u.b.f.m on nature of Albert Cahalan

<seems as though someone may be technically adept, while philosophically
misguided to the extreme. I have only had Linux installed on my box,
that I built myself, for a grand total of 4 days now. It is the RH5.0
distribution, with all of the bells and whistles. I have my reasons.
1) this PC is used by my entire family, myself, wife, and 4 daughters.
And because the youngest PC user is only 6, I want her to have the
ability to use it without having to learn the syntax for Linux.
2) While I am a poor working man, I could still afford $40 dollars for a
good used 500 MB Western Digital Caviar, which does not share space with
anything.
3) And because I believe in the Linux philosophy. Linus wrote the Kernel
and made it freely available for a reason, so that others would have a
choice of operating systems, and that it is a free choice.

So to you sir, who wishes to use a term such as, luser-friendly, this
statement shows that you dont believe in a freely distributable OS. That
you want to restrict it, set rules, decide who can and cant use it. You
want to keep it as is, because you think it makes you superior because
you know how to use it as is.
 I am, and will use RH5.0, with all of its bells and whistles, and
benifiet from the fact that it is a for superior OS. That it is user
freindly enough for my kids to use, and that it will stick in the crawl
of ignorant people like you. So I am not a "Looser", I win. And more
imnportantly, Linux wins, because it is suppose to be for everyone, and
thankfully, it is not for you to decide, who gets to use it, or how they
use it, or what options they may decide to use with it.
And the best thing is, that Linux "IS" becoming more popular, because it
is becoming more user friendly. As soon as my crew (family) gets use
Linux, I will be removing all of the Microsoft products from my PC,
which is a day I truly look forward to. Maybe you should go to work for
Micro$oft, you share the same ideas.

 
 
 

I see it's a faq, but it's not a faq!

Post by Alexander Vi » Fri, 22 May 1998 04:00:00






>> >Are you kidding???  4 MB isn't enough to install Redhat???  I thought one of
>>                                                   ^^^^^^
>> >Linux's claim to fame was that it needed almost no ram to run at all.  I
>>  ^^^^^
>> >don't plan on running X, just services from the prompt.
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>> All right, Linux can run on 4M. But RedHat folks dropped in a lot of
>> luser-friendly GUI lossage. Which is the main reason of their popularity,
>> BTW.*RedHat and install something less {memory-,}sucking.

><seems as though someone may be technically adept, while philosophically
>misguided to the extreme. I have only had Linux installed on my box,
>that I built myself, for a grand total of 4 days now. It is the RH5.0
>distribution, with all of the bells and whistles. I have my reasons.

        Good for you. So?

Quote:>1) this PC is used by my entire family, myself, wife, and 4 daughters.
>And because the youngest PC user is only 6, I want her to have the
>ability to use it without having to learn the syntax for Linux.

        Valid reason, all nice and dandy. Your point being?

Quote:>2) While I am a poor working man, I could still afford $40 dollars for a
>good used 500 MB Western Digital Caviar, which does not share space with
>anything.

        So? Disk!=RAM, to start with. There are old motherboards that
can't use more than 4M. BTW, I have one of such beasts as the second
termonal. They have legitimate use. What does the amount of disk space to
his problem with RH?

Quote:>3) And because I believe in the Linux philosophy. Linus wrote the Kernel
>and made it freely available for a reason, so that others would have a
>choice of operating systems, and that it is a free choice.

        Good. Almost so, but that would be a nitpicking.

Quote:

>So to you sir, who wishes to use a term such as, luser-friendly, this
>statement shows that you dont believe in a freely distributable OS. That
>you want to restrict it, set rules, decide who can and cant use it. You
>want to keep it as is, because you think it makes you superior because
>you know how to use it as is.

        Oops. Here we go: the poster is telepath. Interesting. Especially
interesting detail: he managed to reach the darkest pits of my
subconciousness (sp?) and extract a bunch of things that I never seen
there:
        a) superiosity complex
        b) wish to control somebody's use of OS
        c) disbelief in freely redistributable OS
        d) wish to keep unspecified "it" as is.
Ladies and gentlemen, look at the posting he replied to and share my
amazement: where the hell did he dug all this stuff?

Quote:> I am, and will use RH5.0, with all of its bells and whistles, and
>benifiet from the fact that it is a for superior OS. That it is user
>freindly enough for my kids to use, and that it will stick in the crawl
>of ignorant people like you. So I am not a "Looser", I win. And more
>imnportantly, Linux wins, because it is suppose to be for everyone, and
>thankfully, it is not for you to decide, who gets to use it, or how they
>use it, or what options they may decide to use with it.

        Ouch. It hurts. It's not me to decide whether the particular
distribution taken by original poster will run in his setup. Right. I'ld
wish he had less hassles, but the sad fact is that *RH will not run on his
box because this box has only 4M*. And no, I can't change it. And no, I
can't change the fact that in the way he decided to use his box (textmode)
RH's options are not usable. What the hell, excuse me, it has with your
kids, me being ignorant, you being (or not being) looser (or luser - it's
different thing), dare I ask? And BTW, it has something with Linux being
available to everyone: he'd taken the distribution that willn't run on his
box. I wrote that he _can_ run Linux on it. Your point being?

Quote:>And the best thing is, that Linux "IS" becoming more popular, because it
>is becoming more user friendly. As soon as my crew (family) gets use
>Linux, I will be removing all of the Microsoft products from my PC,
>which is a day I truly look forward to. Maybe you should go to work for
>Micro$oft, you share the same ideas.

        WHAT??? FOLKS, LOOK AT MY POSTING AND TELL ME WHICH IDEAS I DO I
SHARE WITH M$. Attitude towards the bloat? Understandment that bells &
whistles may be the Bad Thing (tm) on box short on RAM? Acknowledgement of
the fact that CLI is legitimate thing? Their "luser-friendly Uber Alles"
attitude? (yes, it's intentional Godwin) Their "upgrade your hardware"
mantra?

        I'm sorry, sir, but either you were seriously drunk when you wrote
your paranoidal rant, or you can't read. To be precise, you can read the
things that were never written. Please, learn to read and stop putting
your words into my mouth.

        Waiting for your apologies^U Sorry, I forgot - it's USENET^U
                                                        HAND
                                                                Al
--
My theory is that someone's Emacs crashed on a very early version of Linux
while reading alt.flame and the resulting unholy combination of Elisp and
Minix code somehow managed to bootstrap itself and take on an independent
existence.      -- James Raynard in c.u.b.f.m on nature of Albert Cahalan

 
 
 

I see it's a faq, but it's not a faq!

Post by Rolf Magnu » Tue, 26 May 1998 04:00:00


 > I thought it was 30 pin in 4s, 72 pin in 2s, and 168 pin in 1s.
 > I've only used the 30 pinners, so correct me if I'm wrong please.

30 pin are 8 bit
72 pin are 32 bit
168 pin are 64 bit

a 486 accesses the memory by 32 bit
a Pentium by 64 bit

so on a 486 you need 30 pin in 4s, 72 pin in 1s and 168 pin are not
possible.

on a Pentium, 30 pin simms are not used (you would need them in 8s),
72 pin you need in 2s and 168 pin in 1s.

 
 
 

1. two FAQ's not in the FAQ-O-MATIC

I feel stupid when I used to know an answer but lost it.  ANyway,
I can't find these two in the faq-o-matic:

1)  how do I change the delay in the MkLinux boot dialog?  (I know it's
        done by putting in a variable in lilo or something.)

2)  how do I change X-windows resolutions and bit-depth on the fly?

I'll add the answers to the faq-o-matic if people help out!

thanks,

--

Polymer Science & Engineering       Office: (413) 577-1224
University of Massachusetts    
Amherst, MA 01003               http://rati.pse.umass.edu/~cht

2. lilo doesn't appears at boot

3. FAQ FOUND!! Was: Where's the FAQ??

4. Mitsumi IDE ATAPI CD-ROM not recognized

5. It`s IMPORTANT!!!

6. icheck - old SunOS

7. Please Help....it′s a very small thing!!!!.PLEASE

8. DHCP Question

9. Help me !!!!!! I have no Idea it′s crucial

10. logon not seen by 'w' and 'who'?

11. Odd Solaris problem: file is seen by 'vi' but not 'ls' ???

12. It`s IMPORTANT!!!

13. Since I haven't seen an FAQ...