If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Proliant 1500, Linux [Slackware, 2.4.26] and memory recognition
Hi, everyone,
I was wondering whether anyone could help me out with the problem of memory recognition with a recently purchased ProLiant 1500. I managed to install Slackware 9.1 on it [having to modify an installation CD so that I had a kernel which would support SMART/2 and SCSI at the same time, sheesh] and everything is going smoothly except for memory recognition. I seem to be unable to make Slackware recognize more than 16 MB of RAM [the server has 128 MB]. Of course this problem is known to me and I've fixed it before [I used to have the same model in one of my previous jobs but it had Debian installed]. However, none of the tried methods seem to work: append="mem=128M" - doesn't work [sees 16M] append="mem=131072k" - doesn't work [as above] - I've read somewhere that some LILO versions had problems understanding M, so it would be fixed by converting to kB append="mem=127M" - doesn't work [as above] - I've also read that it's safer to specify 1MB less than the physical memory append="mem=...M" - where ... is 64, 32 or any other number - doesn't work [still sees 16M] append="mem=exactmap mem=640K@0 mem=127M@1M" - doesn't work - kernel panic, general protection error [!!!] - some weird numbers appear when booting in the middle of the process and kernel says "trying to overwrite init" or something similar and then panics... append="mem=112M@16M" - as above for that matter - any other similar specification [as said in http://www.cpqlinux.com/memory.html] produces the same results - kernel panic... And the old format [used in 2.2.x kernels] doesn't work... I'm wondering what might be wrong in this case? Any help would be greatly appreciated as I've spent hours googling for an answer and failed to find any... Trying to compile 2.6.x kernel now, maybe it'll give better results... -- tomasz 'tonid' nidecki, zoliborz, warszawa, poland http://tonid.net http://endemic.org jabber: registered linux user #308829 'nie przejmuj sie, przytul glonojada' (c)hubertus |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Tomasz Nidecki wrote in message ...
Hi, everyone, I was wondering whether anyone could help me out with the problem of memory recognition with a recently purchased ProLiant 1500. snip append="mem=128M" - doesn't work [sees 16M] snip append="mem=112M@16M" - as above Did you try: mem=exactmap mem=640k@0M mem=127M@1M |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Tomasz Nidecki" skrev i meddelandet ... (VinceV) wrote in om: I was wondering whether anyone could help me out with the problem of memory recognition with a recently purchased ProLiant 1500. snip append="mem=128M" - doesn't work [sees 16M] snip append="mem=112M@16M" - as above Did you try: mem=exactmap mem=640k@0M mem=127M@1M Yes, I did, as I said: append="mem=exactmap mem=640K@0 mem=127M@1M" - doesn't work - kernel panic, general protection error [!!!] - some weird numbers appear when booting in the middle of the process and kernel says "trying to overwrite init" or something similar and then panics... Didn't try with the trailing "M" after @0 though, but the cpqlinux site gave examples without it... Perhaps I've made some errors with compiling the kernel? What options are responsible for memory recognition? I didn't turn on memory-type registers [or something similarly named] - perhaps this could be the cause? -- Just a thaught here, are you absolutely shure the memory modules are the same type and in pairs? ECC, EDO ? And not mixed somehow...... Conny |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Conny" wrote in
: Just a thaught here, are you absolutely shure the memory modules are the same type and in pairs? ECC, EDO ? And not mixed somehow...... Well, I didn't think it could be a hardware problem, since the machine says that it detects all the RAM [when starting up]: 131072 KB Detected However, the ROM-based diags seem to show only 32 MB RAM: Testing System Memory Checking RAM (Write, Read, Compare) Base Memory: From 0 to 640 KB Extended Memory: From 1024 to 16384 KB Extended Memory: From 16384 to 32768 KB Checking Address Lines Base Memory: From 0 to 640 KB Extended Memory: From 1024 to 16384 KB Extended Memory: From 16384 to 32768 KB 09:13:27 Test loop complete and Inspect Computer shows: Memory Detected at Power-On Base Memory 640 KB Extended Memory 31744 KB Total Memory 32768 KB I guess I'll have to check the chips then... -- tomasz 'tonid' nidecki, zoliborz, warszawa, poland http://tonid.net http://endemic.org jabber: registered linux user #308829 'nie przejmuj sie, przytul glonojada' (c)hubertus |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Tomasz Nidecki" skrev i meddelandet ... "Conny" wrote in : Just a thaught here, are you absolutely shure the memory modules are the same type and in pairs? ECC, EDO ? And not mixed somehow...... Well, I didn't think it could be a hardware problem, since the machine says that it detects all the RAM [when starting up]: 131072 KB Detected However, the ROM-based diags seem to show only 32 MB RAM: Testing System Memory Checking RAM (Write, Read, Compare) Base Memory: From 0 to 640 KB Extended Memory: From 1024 to 16384 KB Extended Memory: From 16384 to 32768 KB Checking Address Lines Base Memory: From 0 to 640 KB Extended Memory: From 1024 to 16384 KB Extended Memory: From 16384 to 32768 KB 09:13:27 Test loop complete and Inspect Computer shows: Memory Detected at Power-On Base Memory 640 KB Extended Memory 31744 KB Total Memory 32768 KB I guess I'll have to check the chips then... -- Seems strange, I had machines if I took out the memorys and put them back again it worked. If the machine has been unused for a long time. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Conny" wrote in
: Seems strange, I had machines if I took out the memorys and put them back again it worked. If the machine has been unused for a long time. Problem solved. I took them out, put them in back again in another order - no change. However, I decided to have a look a the system configuration. The interesting thing was that it said I had 112 M total mem at 16 M, but the details said there is only a 16 M system at 16 M. Therefore, I changed it to a 64 M system at 16 M and 48 M system at 80 M and now passing the parameters to kernel works and I've got all 128 M available. Thx for all the help and hope this comes in useful to someone in the future as well. -- tomasz 'tonid' nidecki, zoliborz, warszawa, poland http://tonid.net http://endemic.org jabber: registered linux user #308829 'nie przejmuj sie, przytul glonojada' (c)hubertus |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|