From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 12:39:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 12:39:44 -0500 Received: from f191.law7.hotmail.com ([216.33.237.191]:37644 "EHLO hotmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 12:39:26 -0500 X-Originating-IP: [63.114.211.31] From: "Adam Margulies" To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: RE: odd memory behaviour in 2.4.15 Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 12:39:20 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Nov 2001 17:39:20.0772 (UTC) FILETIME=[2052E040:01C16C6A] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I know this has been covered before, however I am puzzled by this situation and so am asking the list for help. I have a rack of 14 linux machines, each with 4GB of RAM. They run great, no problems, using the 2.4.10 kernel. I have a separate linux machine with identical hardware running 2.4.15 which also ran well, until I upgraded its memory to 4GB. Then it ran 3 times slower than with 1 GB of RAM. I know the solution is to put an "append="mem=3900M"" in lilo.conf, sacrificing 287MB in the process, but my question is why do I have to do this? and why do the 4GB 2.4.10 machines run fine without it? I've compared their .configs and while they are different they aren't different in the important settings, such as the memory configuration settings. So I don't think it is a kernel config issue. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp