Mailing List ArchiveSupport open source code!
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]Re: tlug: To set the record straight.
- To: tlug@example.com
- Subject: Re: tlug: To set the record straight.
- From: Shimpei Yamashita <shimpei@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 06:15:08 +0900
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp
- In-Reply-To: <199910221051.TAA14107@example.com>; from Yong-Ming Hua <yhua@example.com> on Fri, Oct 22, 1999 at 07:54:42PM +0900
- References: <19991022182144.D4239@example.com> <199910221051.TAA14107@example.com>
- Reply-To: tlug@example.com
- Sender: owner-tlug@example.com
You(Yong-Ming Hua) wrote: > Hi Jonathan, > > Well, I kinda thought your case strange. Right, Linux runs, > there is no doubt about it. But my machine which we have used > for the past five years is: > Pentium 120, > Cache 64K, > memory 96MB. > > But when I carefully read the first boot up message, it says > something like memory=64MB....(obviously nullifying the 32MB!!!). > So I want to use that 32MB, or any memory above 64MB. hmmmmmmmm > I put mem=96MB to boot up, but the ol'girl doesn't accept it.... > somehow... There did exist some Pentium motherboards that were too dumb to boot with more than 64MB of RAM. There were also some other motherboards whose RAM cache was designed so that performance would drop precipitously if you had more than 64MB of RAM. Or something like that. (I wasn't paying attention to all the bad things PC users were going through back then, since I didn't have a PC at the time.) Getting back to your problem, 2.0 kernels couldn't auto-recognize more than 64MB of RAM. Another problem may be that your machine doesn't quite recognize all 96MB of RAM. To solve the former problem, you upgrade to one of the 2.2.x kernels (anyone here running 2.2.13? has Linus finally gotten it right this time?); to solve the latter problem, try mem=95MB instead of 96. If neither of those work, well...I dunno. 64MB of RAM in Linux is still pretty comfy. :-) [1] Given that your computer has been working for five years (five...? Did they sell P120's five years ago?), the latter scenario is more likely to work. It is also possible, though, that you had a machine with corrupt memory all these years, and didn't notice it since Linux pushes RAM a lot harder than Windows. [1] In contrast, try getting any work done with 64MB in NT. Of course, one might say getting any work done with any amount of memory in NT is a trying experience in and out of itself. But I digress. -- Shimpei Yamashita 山下晋平 <http://www.submm.caltech.edu/%7Eshimpei/> perl -w -e '$_="not a perl hacker\n";$q=qq;(.);x9;$qq=qq;345123h896789,;;$s= pack(qq;H6;,q;6a7573;);$qq=qq;s,^$q,$s$qq;;$qq=~s;(\d);\$$1;g;eval$qq;print;' ------------------------------------------------------------------- TLUG Akihabara Tour: October 23 (Sat), 13:00 Shosen Book Tower 2F Next Technical Meeting: November 13 (Sat), 13:30 place: Temple Univ. * Network Security speaker: Steve Baur Next Nomikai: December 17 (Fri), 19:00 Tengu TokyoEkiMae 03-3275-3691 ------------------------------------------------------------------- more info: http://www.tlug.gr.jp Sponsor: Global Online Japan
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: tlug: To set the record straight.
- From: "J. David Beutel" <jdb@example.com>
- Re: tlug: To set the record straight.
- From: Yong-Ming Hua <yhua@example.com>
- tlug: give more memory!
- From: Jens-Ulrik Petersen <jens-ulrik.petersen@example.com>
- References:
- Re: tlug: To set the record straight.
- From: Jonathan Byrne <jq@example.com>
- Re: tlug: To set the record straight.
- From: Yong-Ming Hua <yhua@example.com>
Home | Main Index | Thread Index
- Prev by Date: Re: tlug: cacheable memory
- Next by Date: Re: tlug: To set the record straight.
- Prev by thread: Re: tlug: cacheable memory
- Next by thread: Re: tlug: To set the record straight.
- Index(es):
Home Page Mailing List Linux and Japan TLUG Members Links