Stephan Wiesand wrote:

> Hi Yannick,
>
> we have no Noconas yet (and I hope we'll have more Opterons than those,
> although they'll be hard to avoid), but 3.0.3/x86_64 works fine on my
> P4 (Prescott) with 925X chipset (a Dell precision 370).
>
> The only quirk is that there's no right kernel-module-openafs for the
> ia32e kernel package (which is SMP, despite the fact that RH dropped
> the "-smp" from the name). Repackaging the one from
> kernel-module-openafs-2.4.21-20.ELsmp-1.2.11-15.9.SL.x86_64
> into a kernel-module-openafs-2.4.21-20.EL-1.2.11-15.9.SL.ia32e
> works well.
>
> What exactly is your hardware? And have you tried 3.0.3 as well, or
> just 3.0.2 ?
>
These machines are NEC ones, with 2GB, dual Intel Xeon at 2.8 GHz,
and SATA disks.

I tried SL 3.02 and 3.03, and in both cases the problem is exactly the
same: the final kernel crashes during its boot, after a complete
installation
without problems.

I should try to log into the shell given by anaconda during installation
to check what is really installed...

> Cheers,
>     Stephan
>
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Perret Yannick wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> we've got some new machines, which are Intel Xeon "Nocona".
>>
>> These processors are supposed to be similar to the Opteron ones,
>> with the support for 64 and 32 bits instructions.
>> By the way, the /proc/cpuinfo for these machines (installed with
>> SL in 3.02) gives
>> flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge
>> mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm lm
>> The last one is for "long mode" with is supposed to be be the
>> 32+64 bits mode.
>>
>> I manage to install both a SL 3.02 and a SL 3.03 in 32 bits for
>> these machines, but the 64 bits install failed.
>> I use the x86_64 scheme for that, all all is fine (PXE boot
>> on the x86_64 boot kernel, anaconda installation...) until the
>> machine reboots.
>> At this point the kernel starts to load and crashes after a
>> 'kernel panic'. The only message I can see is a dump of the
>> execution stack...
>>
>> Does someone met the same problem ? Is it the good arch
>> to use (x86_64) ?
>> It is not really important as they are used in 32 bits at this
>> time, but I don't like that :o)
>>
>> Thank.
>>
>> --
>> Yannick Perret
>>
>