Re: EMC and WinNT
Posted by
Jon Elson
on 1999-12-07 13:23:12 UTC
Karl Klemm wrote:
same problem, over a year ago, while trying to bring up RT-Linux on a 486.
I had two ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL Gateway-2000 486 machines.
The first one I tried got the signal 11 every time I tried to compile the kernel.
The other one ran fine, and built a good kernel, which later ran RT correctly
on a Pentium. (Note that the 486 memory scheme is different from Pentium,
due to page size and other details. This severely complicates setting up shared
memory for EMC.)
http://www.bitwizard.nl/sig11/
Jon
> From: Karl Klemm <kklemm@...>Yup, that's what I thought. That P166 machine has bad memory! I ran into the
>
> > > You can't run a machine with EMC on WinNT. You need to use real time
> > > linux. Also, to use the program you need atleast a P133, 32MB RAM,
> > > 1GB HD. However, I have found that I couldn't compile the realtime
> > > kernel for red hat linux 5.2 on a P166, I had to use my K6-2 300
> >
> > I really doubt compiling the kernel requires a fast processor. It has
> > grown somewhat, but I used to build kernels on a 486SX, although it
> > did take a bit over an hour. Any machine that will run EMC should be
> > able to build the kernel.
>
> This is just my expirence. I was using a P166 and I kept getting a
> signal 11 about halfway through the compile.
same problem, over a year ago, while trying to bring up RT-Linux on a 486.
I had two ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL Gateway-2000 486 machines.
The first one I tried got the signal 11 every time I tried to compile the kernel.
The other one ran fine, and built a good kernel, which later ran RT correctly
on a Pentium. (Note that the 486 memory scheme is different from Pentium,
due to page size and other details. This severely complicates setting up shared
memory for EMC.)
> But when I stuck the HD inYup, bad memory - see the following web page for more details :
> my PC it worked like a charm. It may have been I just didn't have enough
> RAM, or it was bad, but I'm not sure. Plus I'm very impatient so a 300MHz
> processor was nice and quick.
http://www.bitwizard.nl/sig11/
Jon
Discussion Thread
Ron Hanson
1999-12-07 08:24:15 UTC
EMC and WinNT
Karl Klemm
1999-12-07 08:56:02 UTC
Re: EMC and WinNT
Phil Plumbo
1999-12-07 09:10:41 UTC
Re: EMC and WinNT
stratton@m...
1999-12-07 09:18:09 UTC
Re: EMC and WinNT
Karl Klemm
1999-12-07 09:21:29 UTC
Re: EMC and WinNT
Karl Klemm
1999-12-07 09:23:10 UTC
Re: EMC and WinNT
paul@A...
1999-12-07 09:36:40 UTC
Re: EMC and WinNT
Darrell
1999-12-07 09:42:34 UTC
Re: EMC and WinNT
Karl Klemm
1999-12-07 09:41:22 UTC
Re: EMC and WinNT
Karl Klemm
1999-12-07 09:42:39 UTC
Re: EMC and WinNT
Karl Klemm
1999-12-07 09:45:24 UTC
Re: EMC and WinNT
stratton@m...
1999-12-07 09:51:38 UTC
Re: EMC and WinNT
paul@A...
1999-12-07 09:54:55 UTC
Re: EMC and WinNT
Darrell
1999-12-07 10:07:35 UTC
Re: EMC and WinNT
Jon Elson
1999-12-07 13:17:47 UTC
Re: EMC and WinNT
Jon Elson
1999-12-07 13:23:12 UTC
Re: EMC and WinNT
Charles Hopkins
1999-12-07 13:30:38 UTC
RE: EMC and WinNT
Steve Carlisle
1999-12-07 17:30:10 UTC
Re: EMC and WinNT