Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 16:01:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 16:01:47 -0400 Received: from beasley.gator.com ([63.197.87.202]:9221 "EHLO beasley.gator.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 16:01:33 -0400 From: "George Bonser" To: "Ronald Bultje" , "Linux Kernel Mailing List" Subject: RE: >128 MB RAM stability problems (again) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 13:05:38 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <994279551.1116.0.camel@tux> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > 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/