4:18 p.m.
until now, i've test installed f9a several times on a gateway laptop
with 512M of RAM. after adding another 1G of DDR 400 RAM, every
install attempt ends up hanging somewhere -- checking SW dependencies,
formatting the root filesystem, and the latest 300+ packages into the
install.
is there something about extra memory that f9a just doesn't like?
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry:
Have classroom, will lecture.
http://crashcourse.ca Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
========================================================================
4:35 p.m.
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
until now, i've test installed f9a several times on a gateway
laptop
with 512M of RAM. after adding another 1G of DDR 400 RAM, every
install attempt ends up hanging somewhere -- checking SW dependencies,
formatting the root filesystem, and the latest 300+ packages into the
install.
is there something about extra memory that f9a just doesn't like?
Just wondering, did you change the swap size that was being used relative to the
physical memory size? Or did the installs all end up with the same swap
partition size? Was it being auto configured for swap size? Did the install
still warn that the swap was going to be formatted early in the install process
(it probably did warn of that with just 512Mb, just after the partition setup
rather than after the package selection)?
--
Andrew Farris <lordmorgul(a)gmail.com> www.lordmorgul.net
gpg 0xC99B1DF3 fingerprint CDEC 6FAD BA27 40DF 707E A2E0 F0F6 E622 C99B 1DF3
No one now has, and no one will ever again get, the big picture. - Daniel Geer
---- ----
4:36 p.m.
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
until now, i've test installed f9a several times on a gateway
laptop
with 512M of RAM. after adding another 1G of DDR 400 RAM, every
install attempt ends up hanging somewhere -- checking SW dependencies,
And one more, did you try the memory check routine before install? There really
could be memory problems that only show up while the system is using most of it
(package dep solving or downloading).
--
Andrew Farris <lordmorgul(a)gmail.com> www.lordmorgul.net
gpg 0xC99B1DF3 fingerprint CDEC 6FAD BA27 40DF 707E A2E0 F0F6 E622 C99B 1DF3
No one now has, and no one will ever again get, the big picture. - Daniel Geer
---- ----
4:41 p.m.
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Andrew Farris wrote:
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> until now, i've test installed f9a several times on a gateway
> laptop with 512M of RAM. after adding another 1G of DDR 400 RAM,
> every install attempt ends up hanging somewhere -- checking SW
> dependencies, formatting the root filesystem, and the latest 300+
> packages into the install.
>
> is there something about extra memory that f9a just doesn't
> like?
Just wondering, did you change the swap size that was being used
relative to the physical memory size? Or did the installs all end
up with the same swap partition size? Was it being auto configured
for swap size?
i just took the default partitioning to keep things simple, so i
didn't do anything differently from the .5G to the 1.5G install.
also, that laptop had f9a on it initially, so i powered down, added
the memory and rebooted, and ran "free" to verify that it was all
visible, and it was. and then i tried the first install.
i also ran "memtest" for several minutes with the 1.5G of RAM in, and
nothing untoward happened. at the moment, i'm installing with just
the 512M of RAM, and it's proceeding nicely. once the install
finishes, i'll power down, re-install the extra 1G, and see if
everything keeps running.
then, given time, i'll try a 1.5G install one more time, just in case
everything until now was just a cosmic fluke or something.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry:
Have classroom, will lecture.
http://crashcourse.ca Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
========================================================================
5:44 p.m.
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Andrew Farris wrote:
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> until now, i've test installed f9a several times on a gateway laptop
> with 512M of RAM. after adding another 1G of DDR 400 RAM, every
> install attempt ends up hanging somewhere -- checking SW dependencies,
> formatting the root filesystem, and the latest 300+ packages into the
> install.
>
> is there something about extra memory that f9a just doesn't like?
Just wondering, did you change the swap size that was being used relative to
the physical memory size? Or did the installs all end up with the same swap
partition size? Was it being auto configured for swap size? Did the install
still warn that the swap was going to be formatted early in the install
process (it probably did warn of that with just 512Mb, just after the
partition setup rather than after the package selection)?
well, ripping out that extra gig allowed me to do a successful
install. how odd. should i try again with the 1.5G of RAM? and if it
hangs again, i can always switch back to a virtual console and see if
i can find something informative.
rday
p.s. after installing with just the .5G of RAM, i powered down, put
the extra gig back in, rebooted, and "free" seems to see it just fine.
so it's just the install that doesn't like it. weird.
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry:
Have classroom, will lecture.
http://crashcourse.ca Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
========================================================================
5:58 p.m.
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Andrew Farris wrote:
> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>> until now, i've test installed f9a several times on a gateway laptop
>> with 512M of RAM. after adding another 1G of DDR 400 RAM, every
>> install attempt ends up hanging somewhere -- checking SW dependencies,
>> formatting the root filesystem, and the latest 300+ packages into the
>> install.
>>
>> is there something about extra memory that f9a just doesn't like?
> Just wondering, did you change the swap size that was being used relative to
> the physical memory size? Or did the installs all end up with the same swap
> partition size? Was it being auto configured for swap size? Did the install
> still warn that the swap was going to be formatted early in the install
> process (it probably did warn of that with just 512Mb, just after the
> partition setup rather than after the package selection)?
well, ripping out that extra gig allowed me to do a successful
install. how odd. should i try again with the 1.5G of RAM? and if it
hangs again, i can always switch back to a virtual console and see if
i can find something informative.
rday
p.s. after installing with just the .5G of RAM, i powered down, put
the extra gig back in, rebooted, and "free" seems to see it just fine.
so it's just the install that doesn't like it. weird.
Yeah it might be helpful to try and see if the kernel dumps anything useful when
the install fails with more ram, that seems like a nasty problem to have.
--
Andrew Farris <lordmorgul(a)gmail.com> www.lordmorgul.net
gpg 0xC99B1DF3 fingerprint CDEC 6FAD BA27 40DF 707E A2E0 F0F6 E622 C99B 1DF3
No one now has, and no one will ever again get, the big picture. - Daniel Geer
---- ----
6:11 p.m.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday(a)crashcourse.ca> wrote:
until now, i've test installed f9a several times on a gateway laptop
with 512M of RAM. after adding another 1G of DDR 400 RAM, every
install attempt ends up hanging somewhere -- checking SW dependencies,
formatting the root filesystem, and the latest 300+ packages into the
install.
is there something about extra memory that f9a just doesn't like?
You may want to consider trying an install with only the 1G stick installed
replacing the existing 512M (if possible) instead of simply adding
the additional memory... and seeing what happens during an install.
6:12 p.m.
On 02/20/2008 06:44 PM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
well, ripping out that extra gig allowed me to do a successful
install. how odd. should i try again with the 1.5G of RAM? and if it
hangs again, i can always switch back to a virtual console and see if
i can find something informative.
Try with just the new memory.
7:48 p.m.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 06:44:22PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
well, ripping out that extra gig allowed me to do a successful
install. how odd. should i try again with the 1.5G of RAM?
You do not have physically remove all that "excess" memory.
'mem=512M' in additional kernel options will have the same
effect, is much simpler to accomplish, and allows you to
experiment with other sizes as well.
Michal
7:58 p.m.
Robert P. J. Day <rpjday(a)crashcourse.ca> wrote:
until now, i've test installed f9a several times on a gateway
laptop
with 512M of RAM. after adding another 1G of DDR 400 RAM, every
install attempt ends up hanging somewhere -- checking SW dependencies,
formatting the root filesystem, and the latest 300+ packages into the
install.
In my experience, random hangs/crashes are due to bad hardware (overheated
CPU, bad powersource, bad RAM). Start running memtest for a full round.
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 2654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 2797513
1:02 a.m.
i isntall FC8 with 2 GB memory and i add another 1GB without probrem
and later another 1GB and the problem the FC8 only see 3.2 GB and with
FC9 64bits and FC 32 bits it's the same.
some motherboard don't like mem of diferents size or producers
regards
2008/2/21, Horst H. von Brand <vonbrand(a)inf.utfsm.cl>:
Robert P. J. Day <rpjday(a)crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> until now, i've test installed f9a several times on a gateway laptop
> with 512M of RAM. after adding another 1G of DDR 400 RAM, every
> install attempt ends up hanging somewhere -- checking SW dependencies,
> formatting the root filesystem, and the latest 300+ packages into the
> install.
In my experience, random hangs/crashes are due to bad hardware (overheated
CPU, bad powersource, bad RAM). Start running memtest for a full round.
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 2654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 2797513
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
1:47 a.m.
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
On 02/20/2008 06:44 PM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> well, ripping out that extra gig allowed me to do a successful
> install. how odd. should i try again with the 1.5G of RAM? and if it
> hangs again, i can always switch back to a virtual console and see if
> i can find something informative.
>
Try with just the new memory.
sadly, that doesn't look like an option. the laptop is designed so
that adding extra memory via an extra DDR chip is easy -- a single
screw opens up a panel on the bottom. getting at that original 512M
would require taking the chassis apart and i'm not quite ready to go
*there*.
however, just for fun, i put the 1G back in, started the install and
just let memtest run for the last several hours. it claims to have
located 4 bad addresses, but they're all *within* the first 512M, so
that doesn't really clarify anything, does it?
at this point, i'm stopping memtest and i'll try for another install
and, if it hangs, i'll look for some diagonstic messages on the first
few virtual consoles.
stay tuned ...
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry:
Have classroom, will lecture.
http://crashcourse.ca Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
========================================================================
1:52 a.m.
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 06:44:22PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> well, ripping out that extra gig allowed me to do a successful
> install. how odd. should i try again with the 1.5G of RAM?
You do not have physically remove all that "excess" memory.
'mem=512M' in additional kernel options will have the same
effect, is much simpler to accomplish, and allows you to
experiment with other sizes as well.
of course. i don't know why i'd forgotten that. thanks.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry:
Have classroom, will lecture.
http://crashcourse.ca Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
========================================================================
2:21 a.m.
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Fulko Hew wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Robert P. J. Day
<rpjday(a)crashcourse.ca> wrote:
>
> until now, i've test installed f9a several times on a gateway laptop
> with 512M of RAM. after adding another 1G of DDR 400 RAM, every
> install attempt ends up hanging somewhere -- checking SW dependencies,
> formatting the root filesystem, and the latest 300+ packages into the
> install.
>
> is there something about extra memory that f9a just doesn't like?
You may want to consider trying an install with only the 1G stick
installed replacing the existing 512M (if possible) instead of
simply adding the additional memory... and seeing what happens
during an install.
ok, here's the latest. just to make sure nothing had changed
overnight, i again tried an install with all 1.5G of RAM, and the
install hung at the 90% point of formatting the root filesystem.
(this is a default install, so i have a small /boot and the rest all
root.)
i restarted and added "mem=512m" and the install just got by that
point and is currently asking me about software and ... whoa ... bad
craziness:
...
Starting graphical installation...
install exited abnormally [1/1]
sending termination signals...done
sending kill signals...done
disabling swap...
...
unmounting filesystems...
...
done
that is *so* not what i was hoping for. and virtual console 4 shows
a kernel panic. (details to follow depending on whether i can
reproduce it.)
to sum up, *every* install i've ever tried on this laptop with only
512M of physical memory installed has worked. *every* install i've
tried with the extra 1G in has failed, even if i used "mem=512m".
i'm going to try this one more time, with all 1.5G, and "mem=512m"
to see if that's exactly reproducible ... yup, it's reproducible but
virtual console 4 now tells me a different story:
... hald[1286] ... [I] osspec.c:273: /proc/mounts tells, that the
mount has tree changed [um ... what? is that english?]
(repeat last msg twice more)
and at the very top of the screen, i can just see:
... hald[1286] ... device.c:3890: Error removing device
what the heck, let's try this one more time, OK? with the
"mem=512m".
wow ... that didn't take long:
<6>anaconda[1275] general protection rip:2aaaaad6df3a rsp:7fff8c226c60 error:0
thoughts?
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry:
Have classroom, will lecture.
http://crashcourse.ca Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
========================================================================
2:34 a.m.
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Enrique Garcia wrote:
i isntall FC8 with 2 GB memory and i add another 1GB without probrem
and later another 1GB and the problem the FC8 only see 3.2 GB and with
FC9 64bits and FC 32 bits it's the same.
some motherboard don't like mem of diferents size or producers
i, too, am starting to suspect the memory. i just tried again (with
mem=512m), got another kernel panic (a different one this time), so
i'm ripping out that memory and starting from the basics. and this
install seems to be progressing nicely.
this memory is "A-data" brand, i'll take it back later today and
pick up another brand and see if that makes a difference.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry:
Have classroom, will lecture.
http://crashcourse.ca Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
========================================================================
1:14 p.m.
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Fulko Hew wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Robert P. J. Day
<rpjday(a)crashcourse.ca> wrote:
>
> until now, i've test installed f9a several times on a gateway laptop
> with 512M of RAM. after adding another 1G of DDR 400 RAM, every
> install attempt ends up hanging somewhere -- checking SW dependencies,
> formatting the root filesystem, and the latest 300+ packages into the
> install.
>
> is there something about extra memory that f9a just doesn't like?
You may want to consider trying an install with only the 1G stick
installed replacing the existing 512M (if possible) instead of
simply adding the additional memory... and seeing what happens
during an install.
as a progress report, i returned the "A-data" brand DDR memory i had
earlier, and got a more expensive "corsair" brand chip -- still 1G
DDR1. popped that in, tried an install of f9a (x86_64) on my gateway
laptop, but it still hung (although it did at least get into the
package installation phase, which is further than i got with the
earlier memory most of the time.)
so i'm trying the same thing a second time to see if that's
reproducible. if this continues to fail, i guess i can try the most
expensive "kingston" brand, but i'm starting to think it's not the
quality of the memory -- there has to be something else happening
here.
and i'm open to any debugging advice.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry:
Have classroom, will lecture.
http://crashcourse.ca Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
========================================================================
1:27 p.m.
as somebody said above, you may wanna try to use only one type of ram, like
only the newer. also, you may test your ram with memtest.
2008/2/21, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday(a)crashcourse.ca>:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Fulko Hew wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday(a)crashcourse.ca>
wrote:
> >
> > until now, i've test installed f9a several times on a gateway laptop
> > with 512M of RAM. after adding another 1G of DDR 400 RAM, every
> > install attempt ends up hanging somewhere -- checking SW
dependencies,
> > formatting the root filesystem, and the latest 300+ packages into the
> > install.
> >
> > is there something about extra memory that f9a just doesn't like?
>
> You may want to consider trying an install with only the 1G stick
> installed replacing the existing 512M (if possible) instead of
> simply adding the additional memory... and seeing what happens
> during an install.
as a progress report, i returned the "A-data" brand DDR memory i had
earlier, and got a more expensive "corsair" brand chip -- still 1G
DDR1. popped that in, tried an install of f9a (x86_64) on my gateway
laptop, but it still hung (although it did at least get into the
package installation phase, which is further than i got with the
earlier memory most of the time.)
so i'm trying the same thing a second time to see if that's
reproducible. if this continues to fail, i guess i can try the most
expensive "kingston" brand, but i'm starting to think it's not the
quality of the memory -- there has to be something else happening
here.
and i'm open to any debugging advice.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry:
Have classroom, will lecture.
http://crashcourse.ca Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
========================================================================
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
--
Linux counter #213090
1:48 p.m.
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, cornel panceac wrote:
as somebody said above, you may wanna try to use only one type of
ram, like only the newer. also, you may test your ram with memtest.
2008/2/21, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday(a)crashcourse.ca>:
>
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Fulko Hew wrote:
>
>
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Robert P. J. Day
<rpjday(a)crashcourse.ca>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > until now, i've test installed f9a several times on a gateway
> > > laptop with 512M of RAM. after adding another 1G of DDR 400
> > > RAM, every install attempt ends up hanging somewhere --
> > > checking SW dependencies, formatting the root filesystem, and
> > > the latest 300+ packages into the install.
> > >
> > > is there something about extra memory that f9a just doesn't like?
> >
> > You may want to consider trying an install with only the 1G stick
> > installed replacing the existing 512M (if possible) instead of
> > simply adding the additional memory... and seeing what happens
> > during an install.
>
> as a progress report, i returned the "A-data" brand DDR memory i had
> earlier, and got a more expensive "corsair" brand chip -- still 1G
> DDR1. popped that in, tried an install of f9a (x86_64) on my gateway
> laptop, but it still hung (although it did at least get into the
> package installation phase, which is further than i got with the
> earlier memory most of the time.)
>
> so i'm trying the same thing a second time to see if that's
> reproducible. if this continues to fail, i guess i can try the most
> expensive "kingston" brand, but i'm starting to think it's not
the
> quality of the memory -- there has to be something else happening
> here.
>
> and i'm open to any debugging advice.
curiously, this second attempt at an install worked just fine. i
think i'll stress test it once more just for another data point.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry:
Have classroom, will lecture.
http://crashcourse.ca Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
========================================================================
2:05 p.m.
On Thursday 21 February 2008 01:14:22 pm Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Fulko Hew wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday(a)crashcourse.ca>
wrote:
> >
> > until now, i've test installed f9a several times on a gateway laptop
> > with 512M of RAM. after adding another 1G of DDR 400 RAM, every
> > install attempt ends up hanging somewhere -- checking SW dependencies,
> > formatting the root filesystem, and the latest 300+ packages into the
> > install.
> >
> > is there something about extra memory that f9a just doesn't like?
>
> You may want to consider trying an install with only the 1G stick
> installed replacing the existing 512M (if possible) instead of
> simply adding the additional memory... and seeing what happens
> during an install.
as a progress report, i returned the "A-data" brand DDR memory i had
earlier, and got a more expensive "corsair" brand chip -- still 1G
DDR1. popped that in, tried an install of f9a (x86_64) on my gateway
laptop, but it still hung (although it did at least get into the
package installation phase, which is further than i got with the
earlier memory most of the time.)
so i'm trying the same thing a second time to see if that's
reproducible. if this continues to fail, i guess i can try the most
expensive "kingston" brand, but i'm starting to think it's not the
quality of the memory -- there has to be something else happening
here.
and i'm open to any debugging advice.
rday
This from an old overclocker (no longer desirable or needed). Several things alter
ram performance. Most notably quality ('brand' means little) chips an the pcb
they're on, mobo & chipset, an voltage (+), among many more. The Corsair is
probly OK, but have you consulted the laptop manufacturer? IME (past) even the best mobo
can't allow ram to perform. It's really all about the quality of the
cpu/cache/chipset.... the mobo, the total system.
Now I'll probly say somethin you don't wanna hear... the problem is most like
your Gateway (an it's mobo). If I can help at all, an Gateway is less than
forthcommin, return the Corsair for a 512 stick an try bootin the original + 512. mem=
does nothin to fix the problem. I've had homebuilt hw an the best mobo's/ram.
They rarely tolerate an odd number, eg, 3x512. Even after passin multiple cycles
(overnite) of memtest86. There are NO software ram checkers.
--
Tom Brinkman Corpus Christi, Texas
2:11 p.m.
hmmmm ... another install attempt, another hang, so here's what's
happening on virtual console 4 -- a number of messages all prefixed
with "hald[1286]" (along with timing information, long lines broken
for readability, and typed in manually so i'm hoping i got it right):
... [I] osspec.c:230: SEQNUM=1002, ACTION=remove, SUBSYSTEM=vc, \
DEVPATH=/sys/devices/virtual/vc/vcs5, DEVNAME=/dev/vcs5, \
IFINDEX=0
... [I] device.c:3886: remove_dev: subsys=vc sysfs_path=/sys/devices/virtual/vc/vcs5
... [W] device.c:3990: Error removing device
those three lines are then repeated for vcsa5, after which we get:
osspec.c:273: /proc/mounts tells, that the mount has tree changed
should i perhaps post this to LKML?
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry:
Have classroom, will lecture.
http://crashcourse.ca Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
========================================================================
2:11 p.m.
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Fulko Hew wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday(a)crashcourse.ca>
wrote:
>> until now, i've test installed f9a several times on a gateway laptop
>> with 512M of RAM. after adding another 1G of DDR 400 RAM, every
>> install attempt ends up hanging somewhere -- checking SW dependencies,
>> formatting the root filesystem, and the latest 300+ packages into the
>> install.
>>
>> is there something about extra memory that f9a just doesn't like?
> You may want to consider trying an install with only the 1G stick
> installed replacing the existing 512M (if possible) instead of
> simply adding the additional memory... and seeing what happens
> during an install.
as a progress report, i returned the "A-data" brand DDR memory i had
earlier, and got a more expensive "corsair" brand chip -- still 1G
DDR1. popped that in, tried an install of f9a (x86_64) on my gateway
laptop, but it still hung (although it did at least get into the
package installation phase, which is further than i got with the
earlier memory most of the time.)
so i'm trying the same thing a second time to see if that's
reproducible. if this continues to fail, i guess i can try the most
expensive "kingston" brand, but i'm starting to think it's not the
quality of the memory -- there has to be something else happening
here.
and i'm open to any debugging advice.
rday
--
I just got my new desktop and when I went to order the RAM for the
motherboard I wanted, I found that I had a very limited selection. I
ended up with Corsair and it was recommended on the corsair web site.
I would be tempted to check the memory on the corsair WWW site for
compatibility and also check for conflicts between the two memory modules.
I would be more tempted to get two 1gig modules or better yet a 2gig
module if your motherboard will support it. Make sure it is
manufacturer recommended for our system.
Before I searched for manufacturer recommended memory, I thought all
memory was the same for all systems that met the specs. I was wrong
after I read the forums about problems between motherboards and memory
brands.
--
Robin Laing
2:22 p.m.
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Robin Laing wrote:
I just got my new desktop and when I went to order the RAM for the
motherboard I wanted, I found that I had a very limited selection.
I ended up with Corsair and it was recommended on the corsair web
site.
I would be tempted to check the memory on the corsair WWW site for
compatibility and also check for conflicts between the two memory
modules.
i have a qualified H/W friend looking into compatibility for me, so
i'll wait to hear back and see what my options are. if i do
eventually resolve this, i'll let y'all know how it turns out.
rday
p.s. at the very least, the corsair memory is letting me get farther
into the install process than the A-data memory did.
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry:
Have classroom, will lecture.
http://crashcourse.ca Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
========================================================================
5:31 p.m.
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 15:22 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
i have a qualified H/W friend looking into compatibility for me, so
i'll wait to hear back and see what my options are. if i do
eventually resolve this, i'll let y'all know how it turns out.
http://www.crucial.com is a memory selling/info website for RAM. You
can even hit a scan button adn it will tell you how many slots you have,
how much in each one, what you are allowed max, etc, quite useful.
Tells you exactly what type/model memory you can use on your system.
You may have to have windows to use it. Otherwise, just input your
system manually and it will do the same.
Hope that helps,
--
Mike Chambers
Madisonville, KY
"The best lil town on Earth!"
12:59 p.m.
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
<snip>
however, just for fun, i put the 1G back in, started the install and
just let memtest run for the last several hours. it claims to have
located 4 bad addresses, but they're all *within* the first 512M, so
that doesn't really clarify anything, does it?
at this point, i'm stopping memtest and i'll try for another install
and, if it hangs, i'll look for some diagonstic messages on the first
few virtual consoles.
stay tuned ...
rday
--
Memory errors in the original 512M? I am sure this is your problem, not
the addon memory. Have seen this myself...memory is loaded in different
locations based on the top range. Try to get your orig 512m replaced.
2:15 a.m.
Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> <snip>
> however, just for fun, i put the 1G back in, started the install and
> just let memtest run for the last several hours. it claims to have
> located 4 bad addresses, but they're all *within* the first 512M, so
> that doesn't really clarify anything, does it?
>
> at this point, i'm stopping memtest and i'll try for another install
> and, if it hangs, i'll look for some diagonstic messages on the first
> few virtual consoles.
>
> stay tuned ...
>
> rday
> --
>
>
Memory errors in the original 512M? I am sure this is your problem, not
the addon memory. Have seen this myself...memory is loaded in different
locations based on the top range. Try to get your orig 512m replaced.
First, try it on one of your other spares:-)
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
1aaaaaaa(a)coco.merseine.nu Z1aaaaaaa(a)coco.merseine.nu
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
You cannot reply off-list:-)
5899
days inactive
5903
days old
24 comments
13 participants
participants (13)
-
Andrew Farris -
Chuck Ebbert -
Clyde E. Kunkel -
cornel panceac -
Enrique Garcia -
Fulko Hew -
Horst H. von Brand -
John Summerfield -
Michal Jaegermann -
Mike Chambers -
Robert P. J. Day -
Robin Laing -
Tom