-----Original Message-----
>From: Dave Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> From: "Jeff Hogg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ward William E PHDN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >The machine was a 486 DX2-50 with built in 1 MB VLB video, a 3COM Ether
>> >Express III, 16 MB of RAM, a mouse, keyboard, SVGA monitor, floppy, and
>> >a Quantum 304 MB IDE HD. I had a few spare parts that I'm not using,
>> >so I slapped in a better Video (a 2 MB VLB #9 GXE 364 Video) and a
>> >WD 1.6 GB EIDE HD. I also attempted to slip in 32 MB of RAM that I
>> >had, but was stymied when I found that the machine was a true-blue IBM
>> >ValuePoint, with proprietary memory constraints.... this is one of
>> >my two big problems, I think.
>> I have a 486 here running RH6.2. The only differences that matter
between
>> what you have and what I have are +16MB ram and a CDROM here.. It might
be
>> worth your time to stick a cdrom into the machine and give a cdrom text
>> based install a try. Our hard drives are similar enough to make no
diffs..
>> ive a 540mb and and 850 in use. You might also try to do an absolute
>> minimal install, and then add rpms to the system one at a time. The real
>> kicker is the 16mb of ram.. I think you can do it, but its slim. Good
luck.
>>
>> Jeff Hogg
Jeff,
When I started this, I thought I'd have 32MB of RAM to do it in... It
probably
would have worked (I've done installs on P100s with only 24 MB, albeit via
CD).
The key seems to be trying to do the FTP install with so little memory...
unfortunately, the machine only has a single IDE interface, and trying to
use
both HDs...... no room for a CD, even if I borrowed one from a different
machine.
>> I'd be more likely to suspect the memory. There is a minimum memory
> needed to run the installer (although I _thought_ it was 16MB for RH
> 5.x and 6.x). Certainly an extra 16MB would make the install faster.
> Also, maybe try the text based install if you were using the graphic
> based install.
>
> Are you certain the memory is good - I've seen an install fail (for
> both Windows and Linux) because of bad memory. I'd run a memory test
> program (e.g., memtest86) before doing anything else.
> Dave
Dave, I didn't even >consider< a graphical install... the hardware is so
slim,
I wanted to ensure it would work. I didn't consider whether or not the
memory might be bad... but I've gotten quite far into the install, and it
seemed like it was thrashing, not bad memory, that killed the 6.2 install
(although I did get unexpected errors on the 5.2 install try, it didn't
get very far... I suspect a problem in the FTP booter for RH5.2 just from
the way it acted). It appears that perhaps 16 would be enough, if I was
using the CDROM... but not for the FTP install. Why would the FTP install
take so much more RAM? Sure, networking added SOME overhead, but that seems
high. And what is the minimum RAM that is required to do an FTP install?
I'll give a look at the RAM, though, just to be sure.
Bill Ward
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
