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.