[PlanetCCRMA] Newbie question

[Henrik Frisk]

Fernando Lopez-Lezcano <nando at ccrma.Stanford.EDU> wrote:

> On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 14:04 +0100, Henrik Frisk wrote:
> > Fernando Lopez-Lezcano <nando at ccrma.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 20:17 +0100, Henrik Frisk wrote:
> > > > Well, that's what I thought too, but then I saw that the FC5 default
> > > > kernel had a name containing SMP, but then again, I'm new to Fedora and
> > > > I'm new to Dual Core so I'm just guessing...
> > > 
> > > You should be able to use the smp kernel. AFAIK "dual core" == "dual
> > > cpu", I'm using Athlon dual cores with no problems. Perhaps the
> > > confusion is because some earlier dual cores were two chips in a single
> > > ic, I think all the current ones are two processors in just one chip.
> > > Hmmm, well, then there was the "hyperthreading" thing with P4
> > > processors, there was just _one_ processor but apparently two being
> > > reported. The "second" processor was just make believe using idle cycles
> > > of the only cpu available. Depending on what you did you could have a 10
> > > to 20% improvement in speed - but that was definitely a one processor
> > > hardware setup. 
> > > 
> > > Which kernel exactly are you trying to boot (the smp one)? Do happen to
> > > see anything like an error message? Does the machine simply stop at some
> > > point in the boot process?
> > > 
> > 2.6.16-10.2080.16.rdt.rhfc5.ccrmasmp but I tried the PREEMPT-RT kernel
> >     too with the same result. The boot process simply stops at (last
> >     line of output).
> > 
> > ide0: ports already in use, skipping probe
> > 
> > I doesn't throw any errors as far as I can see. The output up until the
> > point above is identical compared to the boot process with the single
> > CPU kernel.
> 
> Hmmm... obviously an issue with the realtime preemption patch and your
> dual processor setup. I don't have much to say. Are you booting with the
> graphical boot off? (edit the grub kernel boot line and erase the "rhgb
> quiet" part at the end before booting) - you may get more information on
> what's failing. 
> 
> -- Fernando

Well, it looks OK AFAICT. No explicit error messages. Anything in
particular I should look for?

/h