Re: eb164 RH 4.0

Maurice Hilarius (
Fri, 8 Nov 1996 17:30:54 -0700

At 02:26 hrs. 11-08-96 -0600, you wrote:
>I am going to include this entire message because it is SO relevant.
>> Hi,
>> I posted recently about my RH 4.0 installation problems on my eb164
>> machine. Basically any large amount of disk activity would hang the
>> machine completely. My machine consists of the following:
>> 333Mhz eb164 board
>> 128 Megs of ram
>> 2 Megs cache
>> ncr 53c825 fast wide scsi controller
>> Quantum XP34300 Gig fast wide scsi drive
>> Diamond S3 video
>me: 300 mhz eb164
>128 MB RAM
>2 MB cache
>ncr 53c810 scsi
>2 x quantum XP 34300 fast scsi 2 (non-wide)
>trio s3 video
>1. I wonder if we have too much (?) RAM
>2. I wonder if our Atlas drives are incompatible with RedHat somehow
>3. I need help! :)

Nope, don't think so. Ponder this:

Machine I am sitting next to:
300MHz EB164
256 MB RAM
2 MB cache
ncr 53c810 scsi
1 x quantum XP 34300 fast scsi 3 (wide)
trio64+ s3 video
512MB swap on sda1 1, root on sda2
Things to check:
SROM's on some machines don't recognise RAM properly. Does SRM or MILO see
right amount of RAM?
Bad cache can show up in mysterious ways, as well. Only way to check this is
to change it (not so easy, as it is a very special part).

I do know that after fighting with an EB164 very much like yours, it is now
running kernel 2.0.24, and is quite happy so far.
I am fighting with a Buslogic on it, and after that it is pretty well where
I want it to be.

>first, (this is during 3.0.3 and 4.0 installs) mkswap fails.
Yup, this happened to me too, until new SROM was installed. System at that
time only saw 64MB< not the 256 that is in it.

>> I read somewhere on this list that you should use the version of milo
>> that comes with Redhat or expect problems. I couldn't find milo anywhere
>> on Not even in the distribution that I downloaded. Maybe
>> I overlooked it but find . -iname "*milo*" didn't reveal anything.
>> I ended up getting a different milo from DEC. Version numbers in the
>> names or in the READ.ME would help a little. Upon booting it I found
>> that it was 2.0.12.

I am running Milo 2.0.18 from DEC "test-images directory. It is dated Oct. 18th.

>> Since I didn't have any better ideas I gave it a
>> shot. I was very surprised when it worked. At least until about 75% of
>> the way through the nfs install. With renewed vigour I plugged my Jaz
>> drive into the Alpha and successfully completed a hard drive partition
>> install (ftp install failed miserably). I was happy, confused but happy.

>> Do the milo and kernel versions have to match?
No, I have booted this machine with it's older 2.0.12 and worked OK as well.

| Maurice Hilarius | The Past is History |
| President / Computer Entomologist | The Future is Mystery |
| Hard Data Ltd. | Today is a Gift |
| 403-456-1510 / FAX 403-457-1338 | That is why they call it |
| | The Present |

To unsubscribe: send e-mail to with
'unsubscribe' as the subject.  Do not send it to

Feedback | Store | News | Support | Product Errata | About Us | Linux Info | Search | JumpWords
No Frames | Show Frames

Copyright © 1995-1997 Red Hat Software. Legal notices