|
Home > Archive > Red Hat Topics > July 2006 > 7.2 and 9.0 freeze
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
7.2 and 9.0 freeze
|
|
| Robert Heiling 2006-07-04, 1:11 pm |
| I recently rescued a 1995-vintage pentium 233 from the back corner of my garage
and returned the borrowed hardware to it - floppy, HD's 8.4GB, 6.4GB, & 1.6GB.
FC5, as I have here, is out of the question for that old machine, so I installed
RH7.2. It seemed to be running Ok, but there was a problem when it was left
unattended. I think the screen saver was taking effect and I'd find it frozen
with a blank screen. Space bar and/or mouse movement would not get it to come
back to life.
So I fresh installed RH9.0 (everything) and it now freezes at the text "login:"
prompt. This looks familiar, but I can't remember the problem.
I've run memtest86 for a day and there were zero errors. Win98 has been
installed on hdb-6.4GB (the 1.6GB is setup as linux swap) now and it runs
without any problems, so I doubt that the freezing is any sort of hardware
problem.
Does this sound familiar to anyone?
Bob
| |
| General Schvantzkoph 2006-07-04, 7:11 pm |
| On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 10:56:01 -0700, Robert Heiling wrote:
> I recently rescued a 1995-vintage pentium 233 from the back corner of my garage
> and returned the borrowed hardware to it - floppy, HD's 8.4GB, 6.4GB, & 1.6GB.
> FC5, as I have here, is out of the question for that old machine, so I installed
> RH7.2. It seemed to be running Ok, but there was a problem when it was left
> unattended. I think the screen saver was taking effect and I'd find it frozen
> with a blank screen. Space bar and/or mouse movement would not get it to come
> back to life.
>
> So I fresh installed RH9.0 (everything) and it now freezes at the text "login:"
> prompt. This looks familiar, but I can't remember the problem.
>
> I've run memtest86 for a day and there were zero errors. Win98 has been
> installed on hdb-6.4GB (the 1.6GB is setup as linux swap) now and it runs
> without any problems, so I doubt that the freezing is any sort of hardware
> problem.
>
> Does this sound familiar to anyone?
>
> Bob
I don't think that the resource requirements for FC5 are all that much
greater then they were for RH9. You might want to try it and see what
happens. You could also give Damn Small Linux a try, it's much lighter
weight then RH9 was and it's using modern components.
| |
| Robert Heiling 2006-07-04, 7:11 pm |
| General Schvantzkoph wrote:
>
> On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 10:56:01 -0700, Robert Heiling wrote:
>
>
> I don't think that the resource requirements for FC5 are all that much
> greater then they were for RH9. You might want to try it and see what
> happens.
I hadn't mentioned the other specs of this 233MMX machine, but the release notes
for FC5 indicate that the 128MB memory it has will not support graphics for
either install or operation. That was my experience a few days ago when I
started an install with just the first CD of FC5. I've also started installs of
ubuntu 6.06, suse 10.0, & centos4.2 just to see what they look like, before
loading RH9 which I've had for quite awhile.
> You could also give Damn Small Linux a try, it's much lighter
> weight then RH9 was and it's using modern components.
True. That are lots of alternatives, but right now I'd like to solve a problem
that shouldn't be happening.
Bob
| |
| General Schvantzkoph 2006-07-04, 7:11 pm |
| On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 11:30:02 -0700, Robert Heiling wrote:
> General Schvantzkoph wrote:
>
> I hadn't mentioned the other specs of this 233MMX machine, but the release notes
> for FC5 indicate that the 128MB memory it has will not support graphics for
> either install or operation. That was my experience a few days ago when I
> started an install with just the first CD of FC5. I've also started installs of
> ubuntu 6.06, suse 10.0, & centos4.2 just to see what they look like, before
> loading RH9 which I've had for quite awhile.
>
>
> True. That are lots of alternatives, but right now I'd like to solve a problem
> that shouldn't be happening.
>
> Bob
If you really want to get RH9 working your best bet would be to search for
your problems in Google Groups and see if you can dredge up an answer that
someone posted when RH9 was current. RH9 is so old that most of us have
forgotten the fine details of it's problems. Using a contemporary
lightweight distro means that there will be other current users to answer
questions. DSL is so small (50 MBytes) that you can download it in a few
minutes. If I were you I'd burn a DSL live CD and try it. If it works
satisfactorily then you can forget about getting RH9 to work.
| |
| Robert Heiling 2006-07-04, 7:11 pm |
| General Schvantzkoph wrote:
>
> On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 11:30:02 -0700, Robert Heiling wrote:
>
>
> If you really want to get RH9 working your best bet would be to search for
> your problems in Google Groups and see if you can dredge up an answer that
> someone posted when RH9 was current. RH9 is so old that most of us have
> forgotten the fine details of it's problems.
I was only hoping that it might be a configuration problem that I could edit and
that someone here might remember off the top of their head.
> Using a contemporary
> lightweight distro means that there will be other current users to answer
> questions. DSL is so small (50 MBytes) that you can download it in a few
> minutes. If I were you I'd burn a DSL live CD and try it. If it works
> satisfactorily then you can forget about getting RH9 to work.
That isn't what I want to do. It will take me less time to simply reinstall with
a different configuration and see if that does the trick. It wasn't supposed to
happen in the first place, so that may be the easiest fix.
Bob
| |
| Some Other Somebody Else 2006-07-05, 1:11 am |
| On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 12:25:38 -0700, Robert Heiling
<robheil@comcast.net> wrote:
>General Schvantzkoph wrote:
>
>I was only hoping that it might be a configuration problem that I could edit and
>that someone here might remember off the top of their head.
>
>
>That isn't what I want to do. It will take me less time to simply reinstall with
>a different configuration and see if that does the trick. It wasn't supposed to
>happen in the first place, so that may be the easiest fix.
>
>Bob
If you really prefer to use an old Red Hat version at this point
rather than switch distributions, you should at least use the
fedoralegacy.org updates (available for 7.3 and 9, though not for
7.2). That might solve the problem. I used 7.3 with only 128MB RAM a
few years ago and it seemed tolerable, though I would guess some
applications (OpenOffice?) would have had trouble if I'd tried them,
regardless of the distribution. Even if you go with DSL or something,
you might want to see whether the system will accept more RAM (and
whether you can find compatible RAM cheap enough).
| |
| Robert Heiling 2006-07-05, 1:12 am |
| Some Other Somebody Else wrote:
>
> On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 12:25:38 -0700, Robert Heiling
> <robheil@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> If you really prefer to use an old Red Hat version at this point
> rather than switch distributions, you should at least use the
> fedoralegacy.org updates (available for 7.3 and 9, though not for
> 7.2). That might solve the problem.
Now that's responsive to my posted question. I'll take a look at those. Thanks!
> I used 7.3 with only 128MB RAM a
> few years ago and it seemed tolerable, though I would guess some
> applications (OpenOffice?) would have had trouble if I'd tried them,
> regardless of the distribution. Even if you go with DSL or something,
> you might want to see whether the system will accept more RAM (and
> whether you can find compatible RAM cheap enough).
The RedHat 6.0 disks are still laying around, so I know that was installed on it
back then and I think there was something else I had on it prior to that
(non-RedHat). So it's not the first time that linux has been on it and the
motive is not simply to get some linux running on it. This exercise is solely
for experimentation and I won't be putting any money into hardware either as the
computer isn't worth it. This system that I'm on now boots FC4, FC5, Win2K and
WinXP, so I don't need that other one for anything other than the fact that I
was going to connect it to my LAN and do some experiments. I have another one to
try if that one doesn't work out.
Thanks for the tip.
Bob
| |
| General Schvantzkoph 2006-07-05, 1:12 pm |
| On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 20:40:33 -0700, Robert Heiling wrote:
> Some Other Somebody Else wrote:
>
> Now that's responsive to my posted question. I'll take a look at those. Thanks!
>
>
> The RedHat 6.0 disks are still laying around, so I know that was installed on it
> back then and I think there was something else I had on it prior to that
> (non-RedHat). So it's not the first time that linux has been on it and the
> motive is not simply to get some linux running on it. This exercise is solely
> for experimentation and I won't be putting any money into hardware either as the
> computer isn't worth it. This system that I'm on now boots FC4, FC5, Win2K and
> WinXP, so I don't need that other one for anything other than the fact that I
> was going to connect it to my LAN and do some experiments. I have another one to
> try if that one doesn't work out.
>
> Thanks for the tip.
>
> Bob
I seem to remember that RH6.x was pretty buggy. RH7.3 worked well and I
used it for a long time. I was very unhappy with RH8 and RH9, as I recall
the performance of those releases sucked. I stuck with 7.3 through the RH8
era and then when RH9 came along and it was worse than RH8 I switched to
Mandrake for a while and stayed with it until I got my first Athlon64
system. Mandrake 10 had terrible A64 support so I switched back to Fedora.
If you are looking to run an old RH on that system I'd use 7.3 not 9.
| |
| Dale Dellutri 2006-07-05, 1:12 pm |
| On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 10:56:01 -0700, Robert Heiling <robheil@comcast.net> wrote:
> I recently rescued a 1995-vintage pentium 233 from the back corner of my garage
> and returned the borrowed hardware to it - floppy, HD's 8.4GB, 6.4GB, & 1.6GB.
> FC5, as I have here, is out of the question for that old machine, so I installed
> RH7.2. It seemed to be running Ok, but there was a problem when it was left
> unattended. I think the screen saver was taking effect and I'd find it frozen
> with a blank screen. Space bar and/or mouse movement would not get it to come
> back to life.
> So I fresh installed RH9.0 (everything) and it now freezes at the text "login:"
> prompt. This looks familiar, but I can't remember the problem.
I'm trying to understand what you mean by "freezes". Have you
tried typing "root" at the prompt, and then use the password you set
up during the install?
If you fresh installed RH9, then perhaps this is the normal login
prompt, waiting for you to login.
Also, I seem to remember that an "everything" install of RH9 gave some
users problems. Perhaps you should try a "Workstation" (I think it
was called) install.
It's been a long time since I installed a RH9 system, and I never did
an "Everything" install.
> I've run memtest86 for a day and there were zero errors. Win98 has been
> installed on hdb-6.4GB (the 1.6GB is setup as linux swap) now and it runs
> without any problems, so I doubt that the freezing is any sort of hardware
> problem.
> Does this sound familiar to anyone?
--
Dale Dellutri <ddelQQQlutr@panQQQix.com> (lose the Q's)
| |
| Robert Heiling 2006-07-05, 1:12 pm |
| Dale Dellutri wrote:
>
> On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 10:56:01 -0700, Robert Heiling <robheil@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> I'm trying to understand what you mean by "freezes".
Only what's normally meant by the term - the system is frozen or hung. There is
no HD activity and key depressions have no effect and aren't echoed on the
screen. Mouse movements do not result in movement of cursor if on a graphics
screen.
> Have you
> tried typing "root" at the prompt, and then use the password you set
> up during the install?
You are joking I hope.
> If you fresh installed RH9, then perhaps this is the normal login
> prompt, waiting for you to login.
As above.
> Also, I seem to remember that an "everything" install of RH9 gave some
> users problems. Perhaps you should try a "Workstation" (I think it
> was called) install.
I can recall that there was an obscure Asian font that caused problems with it
in the past and just that one font needed to be left out. That problem didn't
show up this time. Now I have re-installed with the simple personal computer
installation instead and that is now freezing on the Welcome screen and hasn't
even completed the setup.
> It's been a long time since I installed a RH9 system, and I never did
> an "Everything" install.
I'm trying various kernel parameters in grub in search of a solution. mem=128M
didn't help, so I'll try others.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
Bob
| |
| Robert Heiling 2006-07-05, 1:12 pm |
| General Schvantzkoph wrote:
>
> On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 20:40:33 -0700, Robert Heiling wrote:
>
>
> I seem to remember that RH6.x was pretty buggy. RH7.3 worked well and I
> used it for a long time. I was very unhappy with RH8 and RH9, as I recall
> the performance of those releases sucked. I stuck with 7.3 through the RH8
> era and then when RH9 came along and it was worse than RH8 I switched to
> Mandrake for a while and stayed with it until I got my first Athlon64
> system. Mandrake 10 had terrible A64 support so I switched back to Fedora.
I had RH9 running on this system for a long time and it ran fine for me (2.5 GHz
CPU, 759 MB memory). Attempts to install FC4 in a separate partition last year
from DVD failed right after hitting carriage return. I gave up after trying
quite a number of misguided suggestions for kernel parameters and getting tired
of the whole thing. Then, earlier this year, I encountered a situation in a
completely different context that involved ACPI and wondered if that had been
the problem with the FC4 installation. Sure enough! I turned ACPI off and the
install went through. Later, I also installed FC5 over the RH9 installation. Not
knowing how it would work out, I kept FC4 as backup, but I guess that partition
is where I'll put FC6 when it's ready.
> If you are looking to run an old RH on that system I'd use 7.3 not 9.
But flash back to sometime in 2003 when RH9 was more current. I have no trouble
visualizing the responses to a proposal to install 7.3 and they would likely be
that 7.3 was too OLD and I should use the current RH9. <G>
Bob
| |
| Dale Dellutri 2006-07-05, 1:12 pm |
| On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 07:34:51 -0700, Robert Heiling <robheil@comcast.net> wrote:
> Dale Dellutri wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I can recall that there was an obscure Asian font that caused problems with it
> in the past and just that one font needed to be left out. That problem didn't
> show up this time. Now I have re-installed with the simple personal computer
> installation instead and that is now freezing on the Welcome screen and hasn't
> even completed the setup.
One last suggestion. Reboot with a linux live CD (like Knoppix), then
use that to look at /var/log/messages or other log files on the
harddrive.
>...
--
Dale Dellutri <ddelQQQlutr@panQQQix.com> (lose the Q's)
| |
| Scott Lurndal 2006-07-05, 1:12 pm |
| General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>I seem to remember that RH6.x was pretty buggy. RH7.3 worked well and I
6.2 was rock-solid. Ran several services on 6.2 until just last year.
7.0, 7.2 were both very bad releases.
8.0 was pretty solid; still running a website on 8.0; no reason to change.
scott
| |
| Robert Heiling 2006-07-05, 7:12 pm |
| Dale Dellutri wrote:
>
> On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 07:34:51 -0700, Robert Heiling <robheil@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> One last suggestion. Reboot with a linux live CD (like Knoppix), then
> use that to look at /var/log/messages or other log files on the
> harddrive.
Good thought. I'll just use the tomsrtbt recovery floppy that I've been using to
fix grub etc. Waiting for a new install to complete right now as hangs and hard
boots do wonders to the file system. Thanks for the tip!
Bob
|
|
|
|
|