Bugzilla will be upgraded to version 5.0. The upgrade date is tentatively scheduled for 2 December 2018, pending final testing and feedback.
Bug 46915 - Installer tracebacks with 512 MB of memory
Installer tracebacks with 512 MB of memory
Product: Red Hat Linux
Classification: Retired
Component: anaconda (Show other bugs)
i386 Linux
medium Severity high
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Brent Fox
Brock Organ
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2001-07-02 03:42 EDT by Pekka Savola
Modified: 2007-04-18 12:34 EDT (History)
0 users

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2001-07-09 06:53:37 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Pekka Savola 2001-07-02 03:42:58 EDT
When installing RHL71 over _FTP_ on Intel 815 motherboard, with 512 MB of
you *always* get traceback like in: #34229 (item: MAKEDEV).

This is *not* a bad CD (no CD at all :-), or bad package.

Physically removing memory to 256 MB caused the installer to go fine!
(I bet a stanza in syslinux, limiting the memory the installer sees, would
do the same thing)
Comment 1 Brent Fox 2001-07-03 14:35:59 EDT
When in the installer, can you go to VC2 and type 'cat /proc/meminfo' and tell
us how much ram the installer sees?  Exactly where does the installer crash?
Comment 2 Pekka Savola 2001-07-06 16:59:23 EDT
Fuller specs are:

Intel D815EEA2L mobo, FCPGA, Video, Audio, 10/100
Intel P3/1000/256/133MHz
256MB PC-133 SDRAM *2 =512MB
40GT Maxtor VL40 IDE

We're getting more of exact same systems right now, and I'm hoping to be able to test this
Comment 3 Brent Fox 2001-07-07 17:55:39 EDT
What does 'cat /proc/meminfo' say?
Comment 4 Pekka Savola 2001-07-09 06:53:33 EDT
I couldn't reproduce this on new identical hardware.  I guess this goes to the
unexplainables then.
Comment 5 Brent Fox 2001-07-11 14:26:12 EDT
Makes me think that there may be a bad memory module in the other machine. 
Can't be sure, though.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.