I tested the nonPAE with an old Dell Inspiron 510m (Pentium M) laptop. The normal SL LiveCD did not boot, whereas the nonPAEworks without a problem.
Any opinion, whether the nonPAE LiveCD should be released? Maybe marked as unsupported?

Cheers,

     Urs



On 04/08/2013 12:59 AM, Alan Bartlett wrote:
> On 7 April 2013 22:17, Alan Bartlett <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> On 7 April 2013 21:33, Akemi Yagi <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Alan Bartlett <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>> It has just occurred to me that I have a sufficiently antique 32-bit
>>>> nonPAE system upon which I could perform a test-boot, if Akemi does
>>>> not have anything available.
>>>>
>>>> Alan.
>>> No luck. I could not find any that has a non-PAE processor. And I
>>> think it is important to test the nonPAE Live media before it can be
>>> released.
>>>
>>> Akemi
>> I am currently downloading the ISO image and will be able to test it tomorrow.
>>
>> Alan.
> Unfortunately I am unable to give a positive report.
>
> Using my Dell OptiPlex GX1 (Intel PIII, 450 MHz, uniprocessor system
> with 768 Mbytes of main RAM and 8 Mbyte of video RAM) the NONPAE
> LiveCD boots but eventually throws a kernel panic. (Caps Lock & Scroll
> Lock LED flashing for all they are worth.) I have taken a few
> photographs of the system console showing the messages visible and
> would be willing to forward them for analysis.
>
> Although my experiment ended in failure, I am not convinced that the
> ISO image is to blame. Being a uniprocessor system, I have to tell the
> normal kernel that I boot (for EL5 usage) not to expand itself up into
> SMP mode. What I am trying to say is that my non-PAE 32-bit system
> could be too antique . . . To run EL5 upon it, I cannot use the
> distributed kernel-2.6.18-blah.el5 package but have to use a very
> early variant of one of the ELRepo kernel packages.
>
> Is there anyone else with a 32-bit non-PAE system who could test the
> image, please?
>
> Alan.