Installation Fails in Red Hat 5.1 x64 - Hardware

This is a discussion on Installation Fails in Red Hat 5.1 x64 - Hardware ; Hello, i'm with a problem and i need your help! I work with HP servers and i'm with a problem in Red Hat Enterprise 4 x64 and 5.1 x64's installation (the two versions are having problems, i believe that others ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Installation Fails in Red Hat 5.1 x64

  1. Installation Fails in Red Hat 5.1 x64

    Hello, i'm with a problem and i need your help!





    I work with HP servers and i'm with a problem in Red Hat Enterprise 4
    x64 and 5.1 x64's installation (the two versions are having problems,
    i believe that others too, but weren't tested yet), but the
    installation with those system in the x86 version are perfectly
    working.



    When i try to install the RED HAT 5.1 or 4 x64 in text or graphical
    mode, appears a error log saying:

    "NMI Watchdog LOCKUP CPU0" and in the version RHE 5.1, the last
    message that i can read is "Many lost ticks", after that many
    hexadecimals are showed then i can't read nothing more.



    The server is an ProLiant DL180 G5, it has two Xeon that simulates
    64bits, and both system are homologued by HP. (I work at HP, and need
    to fix this.)



    Any ideas?


    I'm brazilian guy, and my english is bad, sorry for mistakes.

    If needs more details, i will post later...

    Thank you!

  2. Re: Installation Fails in Red Hat 5.1 x64

    topixfreak@gmail.com wrote:
    ....
    >
    >
    > The server is an ProLiant DL180 G5, it has two Xeon that simulates
    > 64bits, and both system are homologued by HP. (I work at HP, and need
    > to fix this.)


    This isn't any real help, but I just did a RHEL 5.2 install
    today on a DL380 G5. Apart from normal RH stupidity, the
    install went fine.

    5.2 is the latest supported RHEL 5. I would use that instead
    of 5.1. I'm pretty sure I've done a RHEL 4.5 on a DL380 G5
    as well... no problems (again, apart from the norm when dealing
    with Red Hat).

  3. Re: Installation Fails in Red Hat 5.1 x64

    On Oct 11, 12:18 am, Chris Cox wrote:
    > topixfr...@gmail.com wrote:
    >
    > ...
    >
    >
    >
    > > The server is an ProLiant DL180 G5, it has two Xeon that simulates
    > > 64bits, and both system are homologued by HP. (I work at HP, and need
    > > to fix this.)

    >
    > This isn't any real help, but I just did a RHEL 5.2 install
    > today on a DL380 G5. Apart from normal RH stupidity, the
    > install went fine.
    >
    > 5.2 is the latest supported RHEL 5. I would use that instead
    > of 5.1. I'm pretty sure I've done a RHEL 4.5 on a DL380 G5
    > as well... no problems (again, apart from the norm when dealing
    > with Red Hat).


    This version you tried is x64?

    Because this problem just appear in the x64 versions...

    I dont believe this problem is with hardware...

    more ideas?

  4. Re: Installation Fails in Red Hat 5.1 x64

    topixfreak@gmail.com wrote:
    > On Oct 11, 12:18 am, Chris Cox wrote:
    >> topixfr...@gmail.com wrote:
    >>
    >> ...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> The server is an ProLiant DL180 G5, it has two Xeon that simulates
    >>> 64bits, and both system are homologued by HP. (I work at HP, and need
    >>> to fix this.)

    >> This isn't any real help, but I just did a RHEL 5.2 install
    >> today on a DL380 G5. Apart from normal RH stupidity, the
    >> install went fine.
    >>
    >> 5.2 is the latest supported RHEL 5. I would use that instead
    >> of 5.1. I'm pretty sure I've done a RHEL 4.5 on a DL380 G5
    >> as well... no problems (again, apart from the norm when dealing
    >> with Red Hat).

    >
    > This version you tried is x64?


    yes... 64bit... required to run Veritas's Clustered
    Filesystem (believe it or not).

    But I have done both on the DL380G5 (which isn't exactly
    the same as a DL180G5 hardware wise... there could be
    many differences).

    >
    > Because this problem just appear in the x64 versions...
    >
    > I dont believe this problem is with hardware...


    Not sure.... I have an HP xw6600 that's causing some problems
    do to an apparent irq routing issue.

    >
    > more ideas?


    I'm scratching my head... wish I had a DL180G5... surely
    somebody has tried to install on that exact model and can
    post (??).


  5. Re: Installation Fails in Red Hat 5.1 x64

    On 12 out, 22:19, Chris Cox wrote:
    > topixfr...@gmail.com wrote:
    > > On Oct 11, 12:18 am, Chris Cox wrote:
    > >> topixfr...@gmail.com wrote:

    >
    > >> ...

    >
    > >>> The server is an ProLiant DL180 G5, it has two Xeon that simulates
    > >>> 64bits, and both system are homologued by HP. (I work at HP, and need
    > >>> to fix this.)
    > >> This isn't any real help, but I just did a RHEL 5.2 install
    > >> today on a DL380 G5. *Apart from normal RH stupidity, the
    > >> install went fine.

    >
    > >> 5.2 is the latest supported RHEL 5. *I would use that instead
    > >> of 5.1. *I'm pretty sure I've done a RHEL 4.5 on a DL380 G5
    > >> as well... *no problems (again, apart from the norm when dealing
    > >> with Red Hat).

    >
    > > This version you tried is x64?

    >
    > yes... 64bit... required to run Veritas's Clustered
    > Filesystem (believe it or not).
    >
    > But I have done both on the DL380G5 (which isn't exactly
    > the same as a DL180G5 hardware wise... there could be
    > many differences).
    >
    >
    >
    > > Because this problem just appear in the x64 versions...

    >
    > > I dont believe this problem is with hardware...

    >
    > Not sure.... I have an HP xw6600 that's causing some problems
    > do to an apparent irq routing issue.
    >
    >
    >
    > > more ideas?

    >
    > I'm scratching my head... wish I had a DL180G5... surely
    > somebody has tried to install on that exact model and can
    > post (??).




    Is that something may be related to the BIOS setup?

    IRQ perhaps?

    Strange, the case remains unsolved, all modes of installation have
    been tempted, including the noprobe, which does not carry any
    additional hardware that is not essential ...

    Someone had a similar problem?

    And thanks for the responses so far ...

    Regards



  6. Re: Installation Fails in Red Hat 5.1 x64

    On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:57:51 UTC in comp.os.linux.hardware,
    "topixfreak@gmail.com" wrote:

    > Strange, the case remains unsolved, all modes of installation have
    > been tempted, including the noprobe, which does not carry any
    > additional hardware that is not essential ...


    Have you tried any of the usual suggestions for any problems like this? Any or
    all of the following kernel parameters:

    noapic nosmp nolapic clock=pit acpi_use_timer_override acpi=noirq acpi=off

    --
    Trevor Hemsley, Brighton, UK
    Trevor dot Hemsley at ntlworld dot com

  7. Re: Installation Fails in Red Hat 5.1 x64

    Trevor Hemsley wrote:

    > Have you tried any of the usual suggestions for any problems like this? Any or
    > all of the following kernel parameters:
    >
    > noapic nosmp nolapic clock=pit acpi_use_timer_override acpi=noirq acpi=off



    or searched the long list of hits at google on "NMI Watchdog LOCKUP CPU" (with
    the quotes)?

    --
    see caveat: http://tinyurl.com/6aagco
    DenverD (Linux Counter 282315) via Thunderbird 2.0.0.14, KDE 3.5.7, SUSE Linux
    10.3, 2.6.22.18-0.2-default #1 SMP i686 athlon

  8. Re: Installation Fails in Red Hat 5.1 x64

    topixfreak@gmail.com wrote:
    ....
    >
    > Is that something may be related to the BIOS setup?
    >
    > IRQ perhaps?
    >
    > Strange, the case remains unsolved, all modes of installation have
    > been tempted, including the noprobe, which does not carry any
    > additional hardware that is not essential ...
    >
    > Someone had a similar problem?



    Well... I know now for sure that the problem isn't on the DL380G5.
    I have now done both a 5.2 64bit and 4.7 64bit install on them
    without issue or need of extra kernel parameters.

    We just don't use the 1U units... otherwise I'd test it.

    >
    > And thanks for the responses so far ...
    >
    > Regards
    >
    >


+ Reply to Thread