On 29/07/11 02:38 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 7/29/2011 1:26 PM, Frank McCormick wrote:
What I am going to do is compare the kernel config files of the last
of the 2.6.38 and .39 series and the first kernels where PAE was eanbled
to see what is the difference. Maybe some other change is aff
On 7/29/2011 1:26 PM, Frank McCormick wrote:
>What I am going to do is compare the kernel config files of the last
> of the 2.6.38 and .39 series and the first kernels where PAE was eanbled
> to see what is the difference. Maybe some other change is affecting me.
> We'll see.
I thought I alre
On 29/07/11 01:26 PM, Camaleón wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 12:38:39 -0400, Frank McCormick wrote:
On 29/07/11 12:15 PM, Camaleón wrote:
I have since discovered a couple of other people who have the same
problem...all on machines using older (circa 2002) Intel boards and
cpu's.
(...)
Th
On 29/07/11 12:57 PM, Dejan Ribič wrote:
Dne 29.7.2011 18:41, piše Frank McCormick:
(...)
No particular reason, it's just that the kernel developers decided at
one point to start using PAE which is now the only kernel available in
the 3.0 series. However I can still and do boot 2.6.38 which doe
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 12:38:39 -0400, Frank McCormick wrote:
> On 29/07/11 12:15 PM, Camaleón wrote:
>>>
>>> I have since discovered a couple of other people who have the same
>>> problem...all on machines using older (circa 2002) Intel boards and
>>> cpu's.
>>
>> (...)
>>
>> Then you better dis
Dne 29.7.2011 18:41, piše Frank McCormick:
(...)
No particular reason, it's just that the kernel developers decided
at one point to start using PAE which is now the only kernel available
in the 3.0 series. However I can still and do boot 2.6.38 which does
not have PAE turned on.
Hi,
On 29/07/11 12:22 PM, Dejan Ribič wrote:
Been there..done that :) The BIOS is the latest available, and Intel
naturally has dropped support for this MB.
My interim solution has been to boot the 2.6.38 kernels in Sid, and/or
Ubuntu Maverick and Natty on the other partitions.
Hi,
I wasn't paying
On 29/07/11 12:15 PM, Camaleón wrote:
I have since discovered a couple of other people who have the same
problem...all on machines using older (circa 2002) Intel boards and
cpu's.
(...)
Then you better disable HT and use a "non-pae" kernel until someone can
provide more data on why/how th
Dne 29.7.2011 17:02, piše Frank McCormick:
On 29/07/11 10:14 AM, Camaleón wrote:
Yes, that I guess is why the system now "sees" only one CPU when I
have a dual core. But I still fail to understand why turning off
hyper-threading allows the kernel (supposedly who only major change is
use of
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 11:02:52 -0400, Frank McCormick wrote:
> On 29/07/11 10:14 AM, Camaleón wrote:
>
>>> Yes, that I guess is why the system now "sees" only one CPU when I
>>> have a dual core. But I still fail to understand why turning off
>>> hyper-threading allows the kernel (supposedly wh
On 29/07/11 10:14 AM, Camaleón wrote:
Yes, that I guess is why the system now "sees" only one CPU when I
have a dual core. But I still fail to understand why turning off
hyper-threading allows the kernel (supposedly who only major change is
use of the PAE extension) to boot when it wouldn't
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:10:37 -0400, Frank McCormick wrote:
> On 25/07/11 01:41 PM, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 13:17:55 -0400, Frank McCormick wrote:
>>
>>> I have been having problems with the new series of PAE kernels. I
>>> could never get them to boot on my machine (see bug #632734)
On 7/26/2011 9:15 AM, Frank McCormick wrote:
>Never assume :) So, if you were me, which options would you include
> or drop...I don't need PAE (one gig of memory in this machine) and I now
> know it's not a multi-core, so CONFIG_X86_SMP is the only one needed ??
> I have compiled kernels befor
On 26/07/11 04:49 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I don't believe CONFIG_X86_PAE is the cause of Frank's problem. I
believe it lies in two or more other config options. It just happens
that he's using a pre-compiled canned Debian kernel that seems to have
other features turned on that are causing hi
On 7/25/2011 11:19 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Frank McCormick wrote:
>> Bob Proulx wrote:
>>> You early adopter you. I haven't rebooted my machine to the new
>>> kernel today yet. :-)
>
> And since then I have rebooted. All good here. :-) But not a PAE
> kernel here since I am using 64-bits.
I
Frank McCormick wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> >You early adopter you. I haven't rebooted my machine to the new
> >kernel today yet. :-)
And since then I have rebooted. All good here. :-) But not a PAE
kernel here since I am using 64-bits.
> >I assume that you could select the previous kernel
On 25/07/11 04:47 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
Frank McCormick wrote:
Camaleón wrote:
Frank McCormick wrote:
I have been having problems with the new series of PAE kernels. I could
never get them to boot on my machine (see bug #632734) .
You early adopter you. I haven't rebooted my machine to the
Frank McCormick wrote:
> Camaleón wrote:
> > Frank McCormick wrote:
> >
> >>I have been having problems with the new series of PAE kernels. I could
> >>never get them to boot on my machine (see bug #632734) .
You early adopter you. I haven't rebooted my machine to the new
kernel today yet. :-)
On 25/07/11 01:41 PM, Camaleón wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 13:17:55 -0400, Frank McCormick wrote:
I have been having problems with the new series of PAE kernels. I could
never get them to boot on my machine (see bug #632734) .
What an ugly (hard to debug) bug ;-(
This morning I installed the
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 13:17:55 -0400, Frank McCormick wrote:
> I have been having problems with the new series of PAE kernels. I could
> never get them to boot on my machine (see bug #632734) .
What an ugly (hard to debug) bug ;-(
> This morning I installed the "new" 3.0.0 kernel, and spent a hal
20 matches
Mail list logo
