|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
RE: [PLUG] Multi-Processor Support
|
Title: RE: [PLUG] Multi-Processor Support
When I installed RH7.2 on our system, it automatically
installed the smp, and the single processor (-up) kernals.
using the same disks on a single processor system, it
just installed the kernal (wasn't -up, just plain).
George
>-----Original Message-----
>From: plug-admin@lists.phillylinux.org
>[mailto:plug-admin@lists.phillylinux.org]
>Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 2:01 PM
>To: plug@lists.phillylinux.org
>Subject: RE: [PLUG] Multi-Processor Support
>
>
> I don't remember for sure whether it listed 1 or
>multiple CPUs on
>the install screen when I've installed on multi-CPU machines.
>So I can't
>say for sure whether that's a problem, but again I haven't had
>it install
>the wrong kernel on the 3 or 4 SMP machines I've tried. The partition
>thing is more disturbing -- I haven't had that problem before. You
>definitely got to the manual partitioning screen, right? I
>think you have
>to click "custom" or "expert" or whatever 2 or 3 times for it
>to finally
>allow you to completely customize the drive partitions.
>
>Aaron
>
>On Mon, 4 Oct 2004, Aaron Crosman wrote:
>> I didn't go through the whole process. When it lay out the system
>> details at the start it only listed 1 processor, so I
>assumed (probably
>> badly) that it wouldn't install a SMP kernel unless it
>indicated that it
>> had found more then one. I was also concerned because YAST could not
>> replace the partition table on one of the drives. Since this machine
>> was previously a Win2K server, I'm not so much interested in the
>> previous partitioning scheme.
>>
>> Aaron
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: plug-admin@lists.phillylinux.org
>> [mailto:plug-admin@lists.phillylinux.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Mulder
>> Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 12:54 PM
>> To: plug@lists.phillylinux.org
>> Subject: Re: [PLUG] Multi-Processor Support
>>
>> In general, SuSE 9.0 and 9.1 work fine on multi-processor
>> machines. The installer probably doesn't use them both, but
>after boot
>> you should have an SMP kernel installed. Did you go through the full
>> install and reboot and it still didn't have an SMP kernel?
>What do you
>> have in /boot? Worst case, you can probably install the SMP
>kernel RPM
>> by hand to get it running.
>>
>> Aaron
>>
>> On Mon, 4 Oct 2004, Aaron Crosman wrote:
>> > This morning my new toy was released to my care. I'm
>about to start
>> > the process of moving our mailman machine from an old
>desktop, to a
>> > retired server. The new server should provide more then
>enough power
>> > to handle stupidly large lists. It's an HP Netserver LC
>2000. Dual 1
>>
>> > GHz P3's. 2
>> > 18 GB SCSI HD. Oodles of RAM.
>> >
>> > This is the first machine I've worked with that had multiple
>> > processors (well, I set one up in college, but we noticed 3 months
>> > later we were only using 1). I booted with a Knoppix 3.6
>CD and it
>> > detected all the hardware fine, including both drives and both
>> > processors. So I switched to the SuSE 9.1 installer CD
>and the first
>> > thing it did was complain that it could not work with one of the
>> > drives. Then I noticed it only detected 1 Processor. So now I'm
>> > looking for suggestions for suggested next steps.
>> >
>> > My inclination is to switch to Debian Sarge, but I don't
>know that it
>> > will go any better. I'm inclined towards defiant since
>our live web
>> > server is also Debain and it'll limit the number of
>distributions I'm
>> > trying to keep track of. That said if I switch this
>machine to Debain
>>
>> > I'll only have 1 SuSE machine left that I plan to migrate between
>> > servers in a week or two as well so I could easily switch at that
>> point.
>> >
>> > So: Does is it relatively easy to install Debian with
>multi processor
>>
>> > support? Is there a better distro (excepting RHE, which I have no
>> > budget for) that you all would recommend (if so why is it
>better)? Or
>>
>> > does someone that works with SuSE know of something foolish that I
>> > over looked? Everything I've read suggests that YAST should just
>> > work, and it's not likely to be convinced if it fails.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > Aaron
>> >
>>
>_______________________________________________________________
>_________
>> ___
>> > Philadelphia Linux Users Group --
>> http://www.phillylinux.org
>> > Announcements -
>> http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
>> > General Discussion --
>> http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
>> >
>>
>_______________________________________________________________
>_________
>> ___
>> Philadelphia Linux Users Group --
>> http://www.phillylinux.org
>> Announcements -
>> http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
>> General Discussion --
>> http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________________________
>____________
>> Philadelphia Linux Users Group --
>http://www.phillylinux.org
>> Announcements -
>http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
>> General Discussion --
>http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plu>g
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________________________
>____________
>Philadelphia Linux Users Group --
>http://www.phillylinux.org
>Announcements -
>http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
>General Discussion --
>http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plu>g
>
|
|