[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: 2.6 kernel boot crashing



On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 01:02:23PM +0100, Agustin Martin
Domingo wrote:
>
> Thomas E. Vaughan wrote:
> >
> >On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 05:17:35PM +0100, Francesco P.
> >Lovergine wrote:
> >
> >>There are good probability that you have some ram
> >>problem.  Run memtest86 in standalone mode to check it.

As it turns out, the problem appears to be that PnPBIOS
support in the 2.6 kernel is broken with respect to my
motherboard.

> >What is "standalone mode"?  I know how to boot to
> >single-user mode by typing the image label followed by
> >"single" at the LILO command line.  Is that what you
> >mean?
> 
> memtest86 is a boot image that will run by itself and
> check memory, no need of a kernel (that means standalone
> here). A lilo entry like
> 
> # --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> # memtest image
>   image = /boot/memtest86.bin
>   label=memtest
> # memtest ends
> # --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> should work once the memtest86 package is installed.

Thanks for the right and good description of memtest86.

I did manage to install and run it yesterday; like your text
above, the documentation in /usr/share/doc/memtest86 was
easy enough for me to follow.  Had I been more of a newbie,
your pointer would have been just the thing for me.

Although my kernel crash ended up being unrelated to a
memory problem, memtest86 did alert me to the root of a
different problem from which I had been suffering.  During
the run of memtest86, the computer powered itself off, as if
because of something's overheating.  I opened the case and
found that one of the clips holding the heat-sink and fan to
the CPU chip had broken, and there was not good thermal
contact.

Hopefully, now that I have a properly compiled kernel (with
no PnPBIOS support turned on) and a new heat-sink assembly,
all of my problems with the machine in question are now
behind me.

-- 
Thomas E. Vaughan <tevaughan@comcast.net>



Reply to: