A netfinity 4500R worked ok with 512 MB for two months with the 2.4.9-13 SMP kernel. Today we added another 512 MB (again IBM ECC memory) because the server was getting a little busy. It booted the default SMP kernel alright but apparently the "fsck -T -a $fsckoptions /" failed since we were dropped into a shell. Which we found strange because normally ext3 would handle these situations in the background ... Trying to run fsck.ext3 from this shell on any filesystem (I tried the one where /opt was mounted) resulted in an immediate segmentation violation. Booting the SMP kernel second time over it hung completely on `Checking root filesystem' Because of the segv I thought the memory was the culprit but: o We booted the 2.4.9-13 UP kernel and it has been running ok for six+ hours now and it doesn't exhibit any problems so far. It went some 100MB into swap. o The extra memory was one IBM ECC 512MB DIMM from another netfinity 4500R to which we added it six months ago and which has been running fine with it for six months or so, lately with kernel-2.2.19-6.2.10.i686.rpm ... Unfortunately this is a production system so we cannot just take it down and do all sorts of tests .. I'll attach UP (with 1024MB) kernel boot messages and SMP (with 512MB) kernel boot messages below. I do not have a log of the boot messages during the segv mentioned above ie SMP with 1024 MB, but AFAICT they where the normal messages. Do you have any idea ?
Created attachment 47380 [details] boot messages for SMP kernel from kernel-smp-2.4.9-13.i686.rpm on 512MB
Created attachment 47381 [details] boot messages for UP kernel from kernel-2.4.9-13.i686.rpm with 1024MB RAM
"WARNING: MP table in the EBDA can be UNSAFE" is the only odd bit in the logs. Could you see if giving the option "mem=800M" as kernel command line option fixes it? (it's still strange, since UP works...) same for "noapic"
Thanks for the bug report. However, Red Hat no longer maintains this version of the product. Please upgrade to the latest version and open a new bug if the problem persists. The Fedora Legacy project (http://fedoralegacy.org/) maintains some older releases, and if you believe this bug is interesting to them, please report the problem in the bug tracker at: http://bugzilla.fedora.us/