>128 MB RAM stability problems (again)

>128 MB RAM stability problems (again)

[Ronald Bultje]

Hi,

you might remember an e-mail from me (two weeks ago) with my problems
where linux would not boot up or be highly instable on a machine with
256 MB RAM, while it was 100% stable with 128 MB RAM. Basically, I still
have this problem, so I am running with 128 MB RAM again.

I've been running Mandrake 7.2 on another machine for some time - no
problem, until..... I added another 64 MB RAM and tried to install
redhat (25 times (!!!)) and Mandrake 8.0... Both crash with memory
faults..... Redhat just freezes or givesa a python warning, Mandrake
gives a segfault with a warning that "memory is missing".... Both refuse
to complete installation...

I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in
my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me
that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128
MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems?
And can that same person PLEASE point out to me why 2.4.x is crashing on
me (or help me to find out...)?

First machine is a Intel P-II 400 with 128 MB RAM (133 MHz SDRAM) and
crashing when I insert an additional 128 - it's running RH-7.0 with
kernel-2.4.4. Second machine is an AMD Duron 600 with 196 MB RAM (also
133 MHz SDRAM), crashing during the installation of both Mandrake 8.0
and Redhat 7.1 and which used to run stable with 128 MB RAM or 64 MB RAM
with Mandrake-7.2. Win2k runs stable on this machine in all
configurations.

I'm getting desperate.... win2k is running stable and it's scary to see
linux crash while win2k runs stable and smooth.

(ps I'm not subscribed to the list - please CC a copy to me when
replying)

Thanks in advance for any help on this,

--
Ronald Bultje

Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)

[J Sloan]

Ronald Bultje wrote:

> I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in
> my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me
> that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128
> MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems?

I don't have the answer for your situation, but in
answer to one of your questions I can happily
enumerate the following boxes I installed, all of
which are running 2.4.x kernels on Red Hat 7.1
with excellent stability and performance:

"Name Brand" boxes:
(3) Dell 2450s, Dual P3-1000, 512 MB RAM
(2) HP Netservers, P3-700, 512 MB RAM
Compaq 6500, Quad PPro 200, 1 GB RAM

Self built clone boxes:
AMD K6/2 450, 256 MB RAM, low end ASUS mb
P3-933, 512 MB RAM, Intel i810 motherboard
P3-866, 512 MB RAM, Aopen motherboard
and more -

These boxes either have an uptime dating from
the initial 7.1 install (60+ days), or from the last
kernel update -

cu

jjs

Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)

[Charles Cazabon]

Ronald Bultje <rbultje@ronald.bitfreak.net> wrote:
> 
> you might remember an e-mail from me (two weeks ago) with my problems
> where linux would not boot up or be highly instable on a machine with
> 256 MB RAM, while it was 100% stable with 128 MB RAM. Basically, I still
> have this problem, so I am running with 128 MB RAM again.
[...]
> I'm getting desperate.... win2k is running stable and it's scary to see
> linux crash while win2k runs stable and smooth.

It's likely hardware problems.  Different OSes excercise the memory subsystems
quite differently, so it's possible (and common) to see problems in one OS
where another appears to run fine.

Download memtest86 and test your system with 256MB in it -- if it reports any
problems, it's definitely hardware.

Charles
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon                            <linux@discworld.dyndns.org>
GPL'ed software available at:  http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)

[Alan Cox]

> I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in
> my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me

Can I suggest you change your memory vendor and/or get an antistatic wrist 
strap ?

> that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128
> MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems?

Multiple boxes, all solid with 256Mb

Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)

[William Scott Lockwood III]

Ditto.  One with 320, one with 256 and one with 192.  All dual booting Win98
or Win2k and Mandrake 8.0 with 2.4.3.

Scott

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Cox" <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: "Ronald Bultje" <rbultje@ronald.bitfreak.net>
Cc: "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)


> > I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in
> > my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me
>
> Can I suggest you change your memory vendor and/or get an antistatic wrist
> strap ?
>
> > that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128
> > MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems?
>
> Multiple boxes, all solid with 256Mb
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)

[Bill Pringlemeir]

 >> I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY
 >> machine in my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone
 >> please point out to me

 Alan> Can I suggest you change your memory vendor and/or get an
 Alan> antistatic wrist strap ?

I also have had problems with a machine that had 128Mb + 64 Mb.  I
discovered the following about 2.4.x.  You _should_ have a swap file
that is double RAM.  Mixing different SDRAM types is probably a bad
thing.  So if you upgraded, then that might be problematic.

However, when I did have 196 Mb it completely trashed my file system.
I also work with electronic components and these were handled in an
ESD safe manner.  It may be possible to set the SDRAM controller to
handle disparate SDRAM chips...but it is probably very painful.  I
have done this on an MPC860 and a Coldfire chip.  However, I haven't
the faintest clue about PC controllers.

Perhaps when I am feeling brave again, I will return to try additional
memory.

hth,
Bill Pringlemeir.

Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)

[Ragnar Hojland Espinosa]

On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 11:16:43PM -0400, Bill Pringlemeir wrote:
> I also have had problems with a machine that had 128Mb + 64 Mb.  I
> discovered the following about 2.4.x.  You _should_ have a swap file
> that is double RAM.  Mixing different SDRAM types is probably a bad
> thing.  So if you upgraded, then that might be problematic.

And here's a counter claim:  At home have 128 + 64, both of different speeds
and brands.  Of course, to run properly you have to force the pc100 to run at
66, but other than that they're happy (96MB swap)

-- 
____/|  Ragnar Højland      Freedom - Linux - OpenGL |    Brainbench MVP
\ o.O|  PGP94C4B2F0D27DE025BE2302C104B78C56 B72F0822 | for Unix Programming
 =(_)=  "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer for  | (www.brainbench.com)
   U     chaos and madness await thee at its end."

Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)

[Bill Pringlemeir]

>>>>> "Ragnar" == Ragnar Hojland Espinosa <ragnar@ragnar-hojland.com> writes:

 Ragnar> And here's a counter claim: At home have 128 + 64, both of
 Ragnar> different speeds and brands.  Of course, to run properly you
 Ragnar> have to force the pc100 to run at 66, but other than that
 Ragnar> they're happy (96MB swap)

[...]

Yes, I imagine Linux does work ;-) The fact is that SDRAM is
problematic (from a hardware perspective).  For the OP, it could be a
bus capacitance problem.  If the boards are older, they might not be
designed for larger memories with have a higher capacitance.  Slowing
down the accesses will stop the problem.  You would do this by going
to the BIOS and changing the CAS and RAS timings (or maybe you can
change the SDRAM clock).  SDRAM has a `NOP' state so that you can run
at a higher clock speed, but delay a command.  Anyways, I don't think
that Linux is messing with the SDRAM controllers, but I am not an
authority.  Also, a single stick is always better than several
smaller memory sizes.

I was looking at the memtest86 web sight "http://www.memtest86.com/"
and I didn't see anything that test for SDRAM cache lines.  Single
beat SDRAM read/writes are less stressful than BURSTS.  It is typical
for single beats read/write to work while bursts fail as four 32 bit
values are written and read in quick succession.  The `algorithm'
description on the web page doesn't seem to test for this issue from
what I see... of course I have been wrong before!

regards,
Bill Pringlemeir

Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)

[mark]

Asus K7V here, 800 MHz Athlon oc to 880 MHz, 256 Mb, occasional XFree86
lockups, otherwise stable with almost any of the v2.4.x series
including -ac variants and the testing kernels.  Right now 2.4.6-pre5,
doing fine.

Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)

[Jeffrey W. Baker]

On 4 Jul 2001, Ronald Bultje wrote:

> Hi,
>
> you might remember an e-mail from me (two weeks ago) with my problems
> where linux would not boot up or be highly instable on a machine with
> 256 MB RAM, while it was 100% stable with 128 MB RAM. Basically, I still
> have this problem, so I am running with 128 MB RAM again.

I suggest you look into the memory settings in your BIOS, and change them
to the most conservative available.  Or, throw out your memory and buy
some from a reputable manufacturer.  Your problem is definitely hardware.
There are racks full of linux machines with more than 128 MB RAM running
kernel 2.4 all over the world.  I personally installed a dozen.  It always
works fine.

-jwb

RE: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)

[George Bonser]

> I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in
> my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me
> that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128
> MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems?

Running 2.4.6-pre and 2.4.6 proper on several machines. Quite busy and all
have 256 to 512MB of RAM. As I type this, I am in the process of converting
an entire production server farm over to 2.4.6 from 2.2.19 as the 2.4.6-pre
series proved out well on a test machine in that farm.  No stability
problems at all. The only reboots were for patching up the kernel to the
next -pre revision on that test box.

Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)

[D. Stimits]

Ronald Bultje wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> you might remember an e-mail from me (two weeks ago) with my problems
> where linux would not boot up or be highly instable on a machine with
> 256 MB RAM, while it was 100% stable with 128 MB RAM. Basically, I still
> have this problem, so I am running with 128 MB RAM again.

Some motherboards have ram requirements that might not be obvious
without reading the m/b manual. For example, some m/b's require
registered memory. Some don't work with ECC. Some require modules be
installed in pairs (of exact type match). Some require that larger
memory sticks be placed in earlier slots relative to smaller modules.
And if you add a wait state in the bios a marginal ram module can become
quite stable; the unstable version can behave differently under
different circumstances (including temperature). Check the m/b manual
and m/b web site for exact requirements, and make sure the ram matches;
even if your memory is good, it might not be good in your circumstances.

D. Stimits, stimits@idcomm.com

> 
> I've been running Mandrake 7.2 on another machine for some time - no
> problem, until..... I added another 64 MB RAM and tried to install
> redhat (25 times (!!!)) and Mandrake 8.0... Both crash with memory
> faults..... Redhat just freezes or givesa a python warning, Mandrake
> gives a segfault with a warning that "memory is missing".... Both refuse
> to complete installation...
> 
> I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in
> my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me
> that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128
> MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems?
> And can that same person PLEASE point out to me why 2.4.x is crashing on
> me (or help me to find out...)?
> 
> First machine is a Intel P-II 400 with 128 MB RAM (133 MHz SDRAM) and
> crashing when I insert an additional 128 - it's running RH-7.0 with
> kernel-2.4.4. Second machine is an AMD Duron 600 with 196 MB RAM (also
> 133 MHz SDRAM), crashing during the installation of both Mandrake 8.0
> and Redhat 7.1 and which used to run stable with 128 MB RAM or 64 MB RAM
> with Mandrake-7.2. Win2k runs stable on this machine in all
> configurations.
> 
> I'm getting desperate.... win2k is running stable and it's scary to see
> linux crash while win2k runs stable and smooth.
> 
> (ps I'm not subscribed to the list - please CC a copy to me when
> replying)
> 
> Thanks in advance for any help on this,
> 
> --
> Ronald Bultje
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)

[Peter Bornemann]

Yes, I have an Athlon 700 on a Asus/K7V motherboard with 256 MB PC 133
RAM. Never had any problem with this configuration. Before that, however,
there was an Pentium 120 with 64 MB RAM. This one used to crash during
kernel-compiles due to an overheated processor. Really funny. Later I got
kernel-panics during boot due to pagetable-corruption. This time it  was
bad RAM and went awayx after I changed one certain module. So I would almost
certainly relate Your problem to hardware failure.

Good success

Peter B

Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)

[Reza Roboubi]

Nobody has answered a basic concern:
Why does Win2k work while Linux does not?

We already know that MiciSoft sometimes helps make stupid standards like P&P
ISA cards and then writes drivers for them.  Something that is hard to do for
any _sane_ developers who did not help make the stupid "standard".

Having said that, if anybody has a technical answer for Ronald please give it
to him.  He says:
My systems ARE FINE BECAUSE Win2k runs on them.  This deserves a direct
technical answer if anybody has one.

--------------------
I'm a Linux user and proud of it.

Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)

[Charles Cazabon]

Reza Roboubi <reza@linisoft.com> wrote:
> Nobody has answered a basic concern:
> Why does Win2k work while Linux does not?

I did post a possible answer for this:  different OSes excercise the memory
subsystem very differently.  This is why a box might run (say) Win95
apparently stably, but not be able to run Linux.  The same reasoning applies
to other OSes.  I've seen this many times myself.

Charles
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon                            <linux@discworld.dyndns.org>
GPL'ed software available at:  http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

RE: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)

[George Bonser]

>
> Nobody has answered a basic concern:
> Why does Win2k work while Linux does not?

The answer could be as simple as the fact that Linux might be trying to
write to the exact memory location that is bad but Win2k has not.  It might
also be that he in fact DOES have problems with win2k but is unaware of it,
that location might be used for data storage rather than program execution.

All I can say is this ... I have never used Windows on our production web
farms and Linux 2.4 appears to work just fine will many different sizes of
memory ... all greater than 128MB.

RE: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)

[Don Krause]

> Can someone please
> point out to me
> that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with
> more than 128
> MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems?
> And can that same person PLEASE point out to me why 2.4.x is
> crashing on
> me (or help me to find out...)?

%uname -a
Linux cartman 2.4.0-64GB-SMP #1 SMP Wed Jan 24 15:52:30 GMT 2001 i686
unknown
%uptime
 8:35am  up 57 days, 12:42,  2 users,  load average: 2.00, 2.00, 2.00
%free
             total      used      free      shared      buffers      cached
Mem:        254904    251968      2936           0        92224       45028
-/+ buffers/cache:    114716    140188
Swap:       524656     14192    510464


Could this be a 2.4 swap issue. You NEED at least RAM x2 swap. If you're
just adding memory to
a box that's stable with 128 megs and possibly 256 megs swap (you don't
state, just guessing..)
you've now got too little swap, and boom, stability goes bye-bye.

Just haven't seen the swap issue mentioned this thread...

=Don=

Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)

[Gary White (Network Administrator)]

Hmm,

I have no problems either.

Asus KT7 KT133 Chipset

root@station2-lnx:~# uname -a
Linux station2-lnx 2.4.6 #10 Thu Jul 5 11:08:39 CDT 2001 i686 unknown
root@station2-lnx:~# free
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:        512944     509888       3056          0      32140     417532
-/+ buffers/cache:      60216     452728
Swap:      1100444          0    1100444

> 
> > Can someone please
> > point out to me
> > that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with
> > more than 128
> > MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems?
> > And can that same person PLEASE point out to me why 2.4.x is
> > crashing on
> > me (or help me to find out...)?
> 
> %uname -a
> Linux cartman 2.4.0-64GB-SMP #1 SMP Wed Jan 24 15:52:30 GMT 2001 i686
> unknown
> %uptime
>  8:35am  up 57 days, 12:42,  2 users,  load average: 2.00, 2.00, 2.00
> %free
>              total      used      free      shared      buffers      cached
> Mem:        254904    251968      2936           0        92224       45028
> -/+ buffers/cache:    114716    140188
> Swap:       524656     14192    510464
> 
> Could this be a 2.4 swap issue. You NEED at least RAM x2 swap. If you're
> just adding memory to
> a box that's stable with 128 megs and possibly 256 megs swap (you don't
> state, just guessing..)
> you've now got too little swap, and boom, stability goes bye-bye.
> 
> Just haven't seen the swap issue mentioned this thread...
> 
> =Don=
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

-- 
Gary White               Network Administrator
admin@netpathway.com          Internet Pathway
Voice 601-776-3355            Fax 601-776-2314

Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)

[Peter A. Castro]

On 4 Jul 2001, Ronald Bultje wrote:

> Hi,

Hi back at you :-)

> you might remember an e-mail from me (two weeks ago) with my problems
> where linux would not boot up or be highly instable on a machine with
> 256 MB RAM, while it was 100% stable with 128 MB RAM. Basically, I still
> have this problem, so I am running with 128 MB RAM again.

This can mean (but is not limited to) that the second memory module is
bad, or can't keep up with the DRAM controller.  An obvious test is to
replace your existing memory module with the other memory module and see
if you experience problems.  If you experience no problems, then it's not
the module.  Most likely it's the DRAM controller (or a capacitence
problem due to timing).  Some BIOSs allow you to adjust the DRAM
controller timings (RAS, CAS, clock).  You may have to slow down the
timings to stabalize the memory access.

I have a DELL computer at work that is supposed to be able to take 128M
(4 banks of 32M) in SIMMs, but no matter what brand of memory (I went
through 4 different manufacturers), it always caused OS crashes.  Yet, if
I load it with 64M (4 banks of 16M) its completely stable.  That
computers BIOS doesn't allow me to change the DRAM timings, so I'm stuck
with 64M.  This is just to illustrate that it might not be the memory,
but the controller thats the problem. 

> I've been running Mandrake 7.2 on another machine for some time - no
> problem, until..... I added another 64 MB RAM and tried to install
> redhat (25 times (!!!)) and Mandrake 8.0... Both crash with memory
> faults..... Redhat just freezes or givesa a python warning, Mandrake
> gives a segfault with a warning that "memory is missing".... Both refuse
> to complete installation...

When you boot the installer (either from CD or floppy) you get the option
to add kernel parameters before the installer kernel actually boots.  Try
adding the parameter "mem=128M" or "mem=64M".  This will restrict the
installer to using a subset of the total memory.  In my experience, the
installer environment of most distributions is not very robust, but once
installed, the normal system is quite stable.

> I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in
> my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me
> that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128
> MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems?
> And can that same person PLEASE point out to me why 2.4.x is crashing on
> me (or help me to find out...)?

Really, we need more information than "can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY
machine".  What brand/make motherboard?

> First machine is a Intel P-II 400 with 128 MB RAM (133 MHz SDRAM) and
> crashing when I insert an additional 128 - it's running RH-7.0 with
> kernel-2.4.4. Second machine is an AMD Duron 600 with 196 MB RAM (also
> 133 MHz SDRAM), crashing during the installation of both Mandrake 8.0
> and Redhat 7.1 and which used to run stable with 128 MB RAM or 64 MB RAM
> with Mandrake-7.2. Win2k runs stable on this machine in all
> configurations.

Each OS allocates the physical memory differently.  MS-Windows typically
allocates physical memory sequentually.  Linux tends to uses both ends of
the memory pool.  For a proper test, you need to load enough programs so
that all of physical memory will be utilized.  Win2k may be "stable"
because you aren't loading enough of the system to touch the second bank
of memory.  Please try running several large programs and exercise them
all together for several minutes.  You can use the task manager to find
the total memory used on the system. 

> I'm getting desperate.... win2k is running stable and it's scary to see
> linux crash while win2k runs stable and smooth.

It's kinda funny, but I actually use MS-Windows NT as a memory/controller
tester ;-).  In my experience, I've found that Windows is much more
demanding/picky of the hardware than Linux is (Linux installer
experiences being the notable exception). 

> (ps I'm not subscribed to the list - please CC a copy to me when
> replying)
> 
> Thanks in advance for any help on this,
> --
> Ronald Bultje

-- 
Peter A. Castro <doctor@fruitbat.org> or <Peter.Castro@oracle.com>
	"Cats are just autistic Dogs" -- Dr. Tony Attwood

Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)

[Ronald Bultje]

Hi all,

On 05 Jul 2001 13:45:23 -0700, Peter A. Castro wrote:
> Each OS allocates the physical memory differently.  MS-Windows typically
> allocates physical memory sequentually.  Linux tends to uses both ends of
> the memory pool.  For a proper test, you need to load enough programs so
> that all of physical memory will be utilized.  Win2k may be "stable"
> because you aren't loading enough of the system to touch the second bank
> of memory.  Please try running several large programs and exercise them
> all together for several minutes.  You can use the task manager to find
> the total memory used on the system. 

Pheew (this is sarcastic)
You're fully correct, after toying a bit on win2k, I crashed it a few
times with weird errors and I must say, these blue screens in win2k look
a *lot* better than the ones I used to see in win98 ;-). They still
don't match that wonderful "kernel panic", though.

So, basically, my bios must have loaded the wrong options for my memory
which must run above it's limits which causes data corruption... Then,
my stupid question, why doesn't memtest86 detect that?

Anyway, I'll go look at the bios settings of the computers, look at the
CAS/RAS/clock timing settings like two people suggested (thanks :-) )
and hope to be happy and have a stable machine after that.

Thanks for this half-solution :-)

--
Ronald Bultje

Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)

[Andreas Bombe]

On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 07:55:50PM +0200, Ronald Bultje wrote:
> So, basically, my bios must have loaded the wrong options for my memory
> which must run above it's limits which causes data corruption... Then,
> my stupid question, why doesn't memtest86 detect that?

Because it's a memory tester and not real work load.  It tries special
access patterns to find hard memory errors (i.e. memory cells that are
damaged).  Timing and configuration errors are harder to find.  For one
thing, these might depend on temperature, and memtest86 won't stress the
CPU into generating as much heat as real work will do.

> Anyway, I'll go look at the bios settings of the computers, look at the
> CAS/RAS/clock timing settings like two people suggested (thanks :-) )
> and hope to be happy and have a stable machine after that.

According to your posts, you are using no-name SDRAMs, and two different
ones.  I have already posted that, their configuration data is often
incomplete or just erronous and the BIOS will be confused or has just
errors itself (like configuring all SDRAMs to the values of the first
one).

The German computer magazine c't has some time ago bought no-name
and branded SDRAMs and tested them extensively (checked config ROM data,
put them in a lended $500000 memory tester).  Results were that no-names
were on average pretty crappy.  The branded ones weren't perfect, but
much better.  A month after that article pretty much every computer
store here had brand SDRAMs in addition to the cheap no-name stuff.

If you can get hold of the timing values for your RAM (might be hard
with no-name, use conservative values otherwise) then it's better to set
these directly instead of letting the BIOS go around playing with that
stuff.

>From what I've read, some manufacturers even simply gave up on
autodetection, left it out of the BIOS and require the user to configure
it themselves if they want some performance.

-- 
Andreas E. Bombe <andreas.bombe@munich.netsurf.de>    DSA key 0x04880A44

Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)

[Ronald Bultje]

On 04 Jul 2001 17:29:12 -0400, Chris Siebenmann wrote:
> You write:
> | I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in
> | my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me
> | that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128
> | MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems?
> 
>  Me. Two machines. (Both 2.4.5 high -ac kernels.)
> 
>  I strongly suggest getting memtest86 and running it on all of your
> problematic machines.

I ran memtest tonight on all machines....
It gave 0 errors on all of them.....

So.... this leads to the conclusion that the memory is okay, and that
something else must be the problem.... Could it still be a failing power
supply or something? It seems both computers have a 230 W power supply.
Might be a problem, I guess, I can buy a 400 W thingy if that makes
sense.

Other solutions I heard:
- antistatic wrist strap: already have one :-)
- BIOS fiddling... What exactly should I look for? They are, as far as I
can see, identical memory sticks, probably both from different
suppliers, but besides that quite the same....
- are there different brands of memory of different quality and might
that be a possible cause of the problems? And if so - what are good
memory brands and what are the bad ones?
- I mixed different types of SDRAM... Could be it.... My mainboard
manual is not really clear about this.... And I have no clue what brand
of memory I bought... they are all 133 MHz SDRAM sticks, some 64 MB,
some 128 MB.... MB manual says it can handle all 64/128 MB sticks...
- <your solution here :-)>

Anyway, thanks for any advice until now and thanks for listening again,
hope to hear more solutions.

--
Ronald Bultje

Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)

[Chris Bacott]

> So.... this leads to the conclusion that the memory is okay, and that
> something else must be the problem.... Could it still be a failing power
> supply or something? It seems both computers have a 230 W power supply.
> Might be a problem, I guess, I can buy a 400 W thingy if that makes
> sense.

Can't comment. Another post states that they are using a 400W with problems. 

> Other solutions I heard:
> - antistatic wrist strap: already have one :-)
> - BIOS fiddling... What exactly should I look for? They are, as far as I
> can see, identical memory sticks, probably both from different
> suppliers, but besides that quite the same....
> - are there different brands of memory of different quality and might
> that be a possible cause of the problems? And if so - what are good
> memory brands and what are the bad ones?
> - I mixed different types of SDRAM... Could be it.... My mainboard
> manual is not really clear about this.... And I have no clue what brand
> of memory I bought... they are all 133 MHz SDRAM sticks, some 64 MB,
> some 128 MB.... MB manual says it can handle all 64/128 MB sticks...
> - <your solution here :-)>
Are you mixing connector types, ie gold/silver (I can't remember what they 
are made of )? This _will_ give you problems, among which including 
stability. You should _always_ match connectors with the mainboard. I 
apologize if you already know this. 

> Anyway, thanks for any advice until now and thanks for listening again,
> hope to hear more solutions.

See above, I'm just throwing out a potential solution.

-- 
Chris Bacott

Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)

[StarTux]

<snip>

>>
>
>I ran memtest tonight on all machines....
>It gave 0 errors on all of them.....
>
>So.... this leads to the conclusion that the memory is okay, and that
>something else must be the problem.... Could it still be a failing power
>supply or something? It seems both computers have a 230 W power supply.
>Might be a problem, I guess, I can buy a 400 W thingy if that makes
>sense.
>
Happening with me and a 300watt supply...

><snip>
>
I am beta testing the Dockingstation for Creatures, and I got some 
extras for it. But on my SuSE box the thing freezes within minutes, if 
use all the agents. Its a very proccessor and memory intensive app. And 
I have 256MB ram.


Just watched it crash when I started mozilla....

Only just found out people are having issue with RAM and 2.4.5....? I am 
running 2.4.4....

I do not think the program has a bug...But no-one else is even saying 
anything which is very annoying.

Matt

Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)

[Reza Roboubi]

Ronald Bultje wrote:

> I ran memtest tonight on all machines....
> It gave 0 errors on all of them.....

You have dual boot machines(right?)  Which boot loader are you using to boot
linux?  Could this be related to the boot loader messing up the initial state
of the machine?

Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)

[Ronald Bultje]

On 05 Jul 2001 01:40:47 -0700, Reza Roboubi wrote:
> You have dual boot machines(right?)  Which boot loader are you using to boot
> linux?  Could this be related to the boot loader messing up the initial state
> of the machine?

No, it's the installation so I'm booting from the CD (mdk-8/RH-7.1
installation CDs).

--
Ronald Bultje

Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)

[Reza Roboubi]

Ronald Bultje wrote:

> No, it's the installation so I'm booting from the CD (mdk-8/RH-7.1
> installation CDs).

Your cd might be corrupted.  If you are using the same cd for both machines, try
changing it.

Re: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)

[D. Stimits]

Ronald Bultje wrote:
> 
> On 04 Jul 2001 17:29:12 -0400, Chris Siebenmann wrote:
> > You write:
> > | I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in
> > | my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me
> > | that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128
> > | MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems?
> >
> >  Me. Two machines. (Both 2.4.5 high -ac kernels.)
> >
> >  I strongly suggest getting memtest86 and running it on all of your
> > problematic machines.
> 
> I ran memtest tonight on all machines....
> It gave 0 errors on all of them.....
> 
> So.... this leads to the conclusion that the memory is okay, and that
> something else must be the problem.... Could it still be a failing power
> supply or something? It seems both computers have a 230 W power supply.
> Might be a problem, I guess, I can buy a 400 W thingy if that makes
> sense.
> 
> Other solutions I heard:
> - antistatic wrist strap: already have one :-)
> - BIOS fiddling... What exactly should I look for? They are, as far as I
> can see, identical memory sticks, probably both from different
> suppliers, but besides that quite the same....

Look for wait states. Add a wait state, which slows down access to the
ram (if it doesn't help, put it back where it was).

> - are there different brands of memory of different quality and might
> that be a possible cause of the problems? And if so - what are good
> memory brands and what are the bad ones?
> - I mixed different types of SDRAM... Could be it.... My mainboard
> manual is not really clear about this.... And I have no clue what brand
> of memory I bought... they are all 133 MHz SDRAM sticks, some 64 MB,
> some 128 MB.... MB manual says it can handle all 64/128 MB sticks...

Mixing different types is a bad thing to leave to chance. Corsair and
Kingston I *think* are good brands.

> - <your solution here :-)>

Try each memory stick by itself; if it only fails when both are in at
once, reverse the slots they are in; if it still fails, get another
stick that is the same brand and type as another, try just those
together.

> 
> Anyway, thanks for any advice until now and thanks for listening again,
> hope to hear more solutions.
> 
> --
> Ronald Bultje
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

RE: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)

[Alessandro Motter Ren]

	Which filesystem are you using on this machine?
	[]s.

-----Original Message-----
From: George Bonser [mailto:george@gator.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 5:06 PM
To: Ronald Bultje; Linux Kernel Mailing List
Subject: RE: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)


> I'm kind of astounded now, WHY can't linux-2.4.x run on ANY machine in
> my house with more than 128 MB RAM?!? Can someone please point out to me
> that he's actually running kernel-2.4.x on a machine with more than 128
> MB RAM and that he's NOT having severe stability problems?

Running 2.4.6-pre and 2.4.6 proper on several machines. Quite busy and all
have 256 to 512MB of RAM. As I type this, I am in the process of converting
an entire production server farm over to 2.4.6 from 2.2.19 as the 2.4.6-pre
series proved out well on a test machine in that farm.  No stability
problems at all. The only reboots were for patching up the kernel to the
next -pre revision on that test box.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

RE: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)

[George Bonser]

> From: Alessandro Motter Ren [mailto:Alessandro.Ren@vantcom.net]
>
>
> 	Which filesystem are you using on this machine?
> 	[]s.
>

ext2fs on the production farm but I also have a pair of machines (SMB P-III
800) using reiserfs on mail spools. That pair of machines is not
particularly busy, though.

RE: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again)

[Ronald Bultje]

On 04 Jul 2001 17:06:51 -0300, Alessandro Motter Ren wrote:
> 
>       Which filesystem are you using on this machine?
>       []s.

ext2

--
Ronald