On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 12:07:28AM -0400, Scott R. Every wrote:
> Well, the reason I think its a network problem, is that this machine has
> never had any trouble running heavy load w/o heavy network traffic. as
> soon as the traffic starts up, the network goes away.
You haven't explicitly answered my question.
Does the whole system hang or just network stop?
Do you use the word "crash" in its literal meaning or it's just a hyperbole?
> there are NO messages of any sort in ANY log. If anyone has suggestions
> for how to better log this, i'd love to hear them. at this point i have a
If there had been messages they should be captured with your syslog config.
You may explicitly redirect all kernel messages to a file, like
> production machine that crashes daily. even NT works better than that...
> --On Saturday, June 10, 2000 5:54 PM +0800 Andrey Savochkin
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Hello Scott,
> > On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 05:46:47PM -0400, Scott R. Every wrote:
> >> just an FYI.
> >> machine died again today. heavy network load. sending out 2 large mail
> >> lists, with lots of web traffic and a few quake servers running. this
> >> is using the 22.214.171.124, which is the latest AFAIK. No messages like
> >> the ones Adrey sent below appeared in the logs. Did I mention this is
> >> an SMP server? Would that make a difference?
> > I've just noted the word "died".
> > Do you mean that the whole system hanged, not just network communications?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 15 2000 - 21:00:40 EST