OPPPS: I mean 2.2.9 Was: Warning: linux > 2.0.9 and stability
Jeffrey Hundstad (jeffrey.hundstad@mankato.msus.edu)
Thu, 26 Aug 1999 22:51:16 -0500 (CDT)
On 26 Aug, To: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have three VERY different machines that run AMAZINGLY stable with
> linux-2.0.9 compiled with gcc-2.7.2.3 OR gcc-2.8.1.
>
> One is a DNS, bootp, dhpc, sendmail alias server that has only
> modest disk activity and it's all IDE. Old slackware 3.4 system
> with the latest glibc1. enough memory NEVER swaps, 80MB, pentium,
> IBM Aptiva
>
> The second is a webserver, with atalk, and samba, with a mix of IDE
> and SCSI drives. Old slackware 3.4 system with the latest glibc1 AND
> glibc2.0.7. enough memory NEVER swaps, 132MB, pentium-pro, IBM
> Aptiva
>
> The third is a usenet news server with 5 BIG SCSI drives that get a
> full USENET feed. suse 6.0 STOCK. serious lack of memory, 32 MB of
> ram usually has about 16MB swapped, pentium, IBM Aptiva.
>
> These will ALL run for months without ANY intervention with 2.0.9.
>
> With kernels 2.2.11 with Alan's EMERGENCY patches,
> http://www.linux.org.uk/VERSION/relnotes.2211.html, with gcc 2.7.2.3
> or with kernels 2.2.12, gcc-2.7.2.3, processes DIE with no log
> messages.
>
> The usenet machine will NEVER get through a skim. The skim dies with
> a BUS ERROR. ...innd usually dies once a day for NO reason. The DNS
> machine and the news server both have the crond and syslogd die with
> no reason given.
>
> As an added bonus the DNS machine upon shutdown gives a PANIC with no
> register dump.
>
> I have no problem running 2.0.9 forever, really, but I want to warn
> anyone running anything newer that you are definitely running a risk
> if you do so.
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/