Hi Andrey,
If you were here at Fermilab, I'd be able to tell you exactly the problem, but
since things are a little different there ... you'll have to figure it out
from what happens here.

Here's what happens at Fermilab to get a "signal 11".
You get a machine that doesn't have a registered MAC address, and try to do a
network install, and use DHCP for your network address.  Networking gives you
a network address, but you are really in a little sandbox that only points you
to one machine that let's you fill out a registration form.  But your
installation doesn't know it's in a sandbox, and it tries to connect to the
installation server, and from it's view it is somewhat successful, but all the
replies it get's from the server are completely wrong, and it looses it's
little brain and throws a signal 11.

So the cause ... is that for some reason it thinks it's reaching the
installation server, but it isn't getting back the replies it thinks it should.

I would look in the logs of my installation server to see if the machine is
really reaching it, and if it isn't, try and figure out why.

Troy

Andrey Y. Shevel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I deploy Scoentific Linux 302 on a range of the computers with kickstart
> procedure. When I use CD disk as media - everything does work as expected
>
> in file ks.cfg
>
> ------------------
> install
> cdrom
> --------------
>
> but when I tried to use NFS
>
> -----------------
> install
> nfs --server 129.49.17.67 --dir /NewUsers/Ram/RedHat/RedHat-SL302
> -----------------
>
> I have the messaage just in moment when the installation tried to connect
> to the server 129.49.17.67
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> install exited abnormally -- received signal 11
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Generally it is not first time when I have got such the message. THe same
> I had a year ago when I have deployed RH80.
>
> Surprisingly the same hardware (dual Xeon 500 MHz) I used 3 years earlier
> under RH72 and under RH72 I had no problem with network installation.
>
> Now I tested two type of the CPUs:
>
>  dual Xeon 500 MHz (512 MB of main memory);
>
>  dual Xeon 3.06 GHz (1 GB of main memory).
>
> I got exactly same result decribed above.
>
> May be someone has the knowledge about the cause ?
>
> Many thank in advance.
>
>
> Andrey Y. Shevel
>
> +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
> |     Currently @ State University of New York at Stony Brook       |
> |      Nuclear Chemistry Group, Stony Brook, New York 11794-3400    |
> |       Phone, Fax (631)632-7987, mail: [log in to unmask] |
> |   Also    [log in to unmask]                                          |
> +-------------------------------------------------------------------+


--
__________________________________________________
Troy Dawson  [log in to unmask]  (630)840-6468
Fermilab  ComputingDivision/CSS  CSI Group
__________________________________________________