Very Computer

by **Andrew Gideo** » Sun, 08 Dec 2002 06:56:50

When I installed 7.3, Back When, I'd an odd problem. The computer seemed to
crash at random times and in random ways. I could find no pattern. What I
tried (although I no longer recall why) was to provide the kernel
parameters "noprobe" and "mem=64M". Note that the machine has 128M of RAM
which is properly detected if I don't provide the "mem" option.

I assumed it was just some oddity up with which I'd have to put for a while.
But I experienced the same with Redhat 8.0, which has me taking this more
seriously.

I've tried "mem=96M" (along with "noprobe") just to divide the problem, and
it didn't protect against the crash.

The machine was originally delivered by "Emperor Linux" (sp?) with a Redhat
6.something, and it used 128M then. So either they did something
interesting (ie. perhaps a different kernel parameter) or something's
become broken since either in the box or in the software.

Any thoughts or suggestions would be welcome.

BTW, in all other ways I'm pleased with the machine. My SMC wireless card
works quite well at home, and the machine's travelled with me to Europe and
South America. But I'd really like to get past this problem, as it does
have an impact upon performance (esp. as software is getting bigger while
my disk is getting no quicker, alas {8^).

Thanks...

Andrew

by **Paul Lutu** » Sun, 08 Dec 2002 09:03:21

> When I installed 7.3, Back When, I'd an odd problem. The computer seemed to
> crash at random times and in random ways. I could find no pattern. What I
> tried (although I no longer recall why) was to provide the kernel
> parameters "noprobe" and "mem=64M". Note that the machine has 128M of RAM
> which is properly detected if I don't provide the "mem" option.

> I assumed it was just some oddity up with which I'd have to put for a while.
> But I experienced the same with Redhat 8.0, which has me taking this more
> seriously.

> I've tried "mem=96M" (along with "noprobe") just to divide the problem, and
> it didn't protect against the crash.

> The machine was originally delivered by "Emperor Linux" (sp?) with a Redhat
> 6.something, and it used 128M then. So either they did something
> interesting (ie. perhaps a different kernel parameter) or something's
> become broken since either in the box or in the software.

> Any thoughts or suggestions would be welcome.

Well, gee, if you tell it to avoid the upper 64 MB of memory and this
prevents a crash, maybe there's something wrong with the memory.

--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com

by **Andrew Gideo** » Wed, 11 Dec 2002 02:32:41

[...]

Quote:>> The machine was originally delivered by "Emperor Linux" (sp?) with a
>> Redhat
>> 6.something, and it used 128M then. So either they did something
>> interesting (ie. perhaps a different kernel parameter) or something's
>> become broken since either in the box or in the software.

>> Any thoughts or suggestions would be welcome.

> Well, gee, if you tell it to avoid the upper 64 MB of memory and this
> prevents a crash, maybe there's something wrong with the memory.

That's certainly a possible item that's "become broken". I do need to
locate a good "test all of memory" utility since this doesn't seem to occur
when I boot the machine.

But I'm doubtful, frankly. A hardware problem would have had to occur at
just about the same time I was installing the new (ie. not delivered by
Emperor) OS, since the problem never occurred with the "store-bought"
Linux, but started immediately with the new Redhat installation.

It would be a rather unlikely coincidence. Not impossible, but I'm also not
betting on it.

- Andrew

Very Computer

Problem with Sony Vaio PCG-XG29 and Redhats 7.3 and 8.0

Problem with Sony Vaio PCG-XG29 and Redhats 7.3 and 8.0

Problem with Sony Vaio PCG-XG29 and Redhats 7.3 and 8.0

Problem with Sony Vaio PCG-XG29 and Redhats 7.3 and 8.0