[lkml]   [1999]   [Jun]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 2.2.x instabilities
    On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, ron flory wrote:

    > hi-
    > I am writing to ask (beg) that work continue on stabilizing 2.2.x
    > series kernels before diverting valuable resources to 2.3.x. Traffic
    > on this list is an indication that we still have some work to do.
    > In comparison to the 2.0.3x series, 2.2.x is not quite ready for
    > production use. I have several systems that have been running under
    > 2.0.3x continuously for nearly a year, whereas I'm lucky to get a week
    > on any 2.2.x system (and I have many).

    This is not in line with my expirences, I have quite a few 2.2 boxes under
    extreme load.
    > * NFS. old user-space NFS still works, kernel-space is hosed major.
    > There are problems with timeouts, crashes, stale handles, error
    > messages, code warnings.......

    Doctor doctor it hurts when I move my arm like this.. Then dont move your
    arm like that!

    My four main PII computers at home mount almost everything off a PPRO
    Knfsd server running 2.2.3 which has a good uptime uptime and I've had no
    problems. (this is on switched 100mbit ethernet, the server has 256megs of
    ecc ram and does software raid on 9 disks, so dont tell me that my 'home'
    load is not a test case.)

    > * swap issues.

    Care to be more specific?

    > * networking instabilities.

    Again? some details?

    > * NCP (novell) clients are iffy. I can break it in minutes.

    Wouldn't know about that.

    > * SMP is still 'delicate'.

    Come on! Lets have some details, Please! I have three SMP boxes (dual
    PPRO, dual P5, and dual PII450) all under heavy load of all sorts and have
    NEVER had a panic on any Linux kernel version>2.0.33 (cept the p5 when I
    was playing with schedular code)

    > * SMP/Alpha threads/mutexes are unstable.

    Wouldn't know, no SMP alpha boxes here.. :(

    > * kernel sources often generate errors/warnings. We can do a LOT
    > better here.

    Errors? Can't say I've seen that.. As for warnings, the stupid compiler
    doesn't always know best.

    > * kernel crashes/oops's. I NEVER got one of these with 2.0.x kernels.

    Can you please post your decoded oppses?

    > These are all issues that MS can play upon. Most of this stuff can be
    > caught with better testing practices in a short time. I feel this
    > should be done before chasing after the shiny new 2.3.x rainbow.
    > In spite of all I've said here, I still feel that Linux is far superior
    > to anything else out there, and I'll continue to use, promote, and
    > develop it for the foreseeable future...

    Thats good, but it would be much more useful if you would kindly produce
    some useful bug reports (please excuse me if you already have and I missed
    your posts).

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.021 / U:2.532 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site