Slackware 12.0 on 64 MB
in [Slackware]
|
Prev: Web Cam
Next: sound problem in 12.1
From: Arun Dev on 1 Feb 2008 13:20 Hi Federico and Mark Am 30.01.2008 21:40, Mark South schrieb: > On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:35:25 +0100, Arun Dev wrote: >> >> BTW, I like the idea behind "Absolute Linux". In fact I was thinking of >> trying Puppy Linux if there is a fundamental problem with Slack 12. > > From my experience, Absolute is a *lot* faster on the same hardware than > Puppy. Paul put a lot of effort into minimising the footprint of > Absolute and it shows. I gave "abosolute" a try. Hey, the install script is almost the same as Slack. But there was one difference, and that one killed my effort. I didn't find a package selection menu. It is either you want all or nothing. The "all" is according to a message 3 GB. So as expected the installation bogged down after my 2 GB got full :-( Pretty bad, on this lap top it took hours to get those 2 GB copied. As I suspect hardware anyway, I'll do some checks before dumping the whole exercise. Thanks for all the pointers! Arun
From: Arun Dev on 1 Feb 2008 14:03 Am 31.01.2008 18:38, Ray schrieb: > Arun Dev wrote: >> Could it be a hardware problem after all? > > try downloading and running memtest, and letting it run for 72 hours. I booted from a CD which has memtest (Memtest86+ v1.65) on it. I've started the test a couple of minutes ago. Arun
From: Mark South on 1 Feb 2008 14:41 On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 19:20:22 +0100, Arun Dev wrote: > Hi Federico and Mark > > Am 30.01.2008 21:40, Mark South schrieb: >> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:35:25 +0100, Arun Dev wrote: >>> >>> BTW, I like the idea behind "Absolute Linux". In fact I was thinking >>> of trying Puppy Linux if there is a fundamental problem with Slack 12. >> >> From my experience, Absolute is a *lot* faster on the same hardware >> than Puppy. Paul put a lot of effort into minimising the footprint of >> Absolute and it shows. > > I gave "abosolute" a try. Hey, the install script is almost the same as > Slack. But there was one difference, and that one killed my effort. I > didn't find a package selection menu. It is either you want all or > nothing. The "all" is according to a message 3 GB. So as expected the > installation bogged down after my 2 GB got full :-( Yeah, it is all or nothing, no choice of kernel either. Sorry to have not noticed your disk constraints. > Pretty bad, on this lap top it took hours to get those 2 GB copied. See, this is why you need several different systems under your desk :-) > As I suspect hardware anyway, I'll do some checks before dumping the > whole exercise. If your memory and disk space are so severely limited, I could only suggest that you try NetBSD, which will definitely not be resource limited in 64MB and 2GB. Read the NetBSD FAQ before doing anything. > Thanks for all the pointers! Hope it's been of some help, at least.
From: Arun Dev on 1 Feb 2008 07:07 Hi all Am 31.01.2008 20:03, Arun Dev schrieb: > Am 31.01.2008 18:38, Ray schrieb: >> >> try downloading and running memtest, and letting it run for 72 hours. > > I booted from a CD which has memtest (Memtest86+ v1.65) on it. I've > started the test a couple of minutes ago. If I knew what the expected outcome is! ;-[ Now (about 14h later) the screen stands still --- Memtest86+ Pass 17% ##### Pentium-MMX 266.7 MHz Test 47% ################# L1 Cache: 16K 127 MB/s Test #4 [Moving inversions, random pattern] L2 Cache: Unknown Testing: 108K - 64M 64M Memory: 64M 110MB/s Pattern: 75394bd2 Chipset: WallTime 2:26:26 Cached 64M RsvdMem 56K MemMap e820-Std Cache on ECC off Test Std Pass 4 Error 0 Ecc Errs --- What does that horoscope mean? Arun
From: Mark South on 1 Feb 2008 07:37
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 13:07:08 +0100, Arun Dev wrote: > Memtest86+ Pass 17% ##### .... > WallTime 2:26:26 > Cached 64M > RsvdMem 56K > MemMap e820-Std > Cache on > ECC off > Test Std > Pass 4 > Error 0 > Ecc Errs > --- > > What does that horoscope mean? It ran through the test cycle 3 times without showing an error, and that's good, but 17% of the way through the 4th pass the machine locked up. I see from the clock that it ran tests for 2 hours and 26 minutes before locking. Lockups are not unknown with memtest, since it is messing with the memory after all. The fact that no errors were detected is a good thing, but it may be that the lockup was caused by a memory error due to the stress of the testing. I'd recommend runnng memtest again and checking that the walltime clock is still running every hour or so. |