lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Jun]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Corruption in 2.1.106
Date
From

HW: Tyan 1662D Dual PPRO, S3/968 Video, NCR Symbios Logic SCSI, Intel
EtherExpress 16 networking, Mad16 based audio. SW: RH 5.1

[root@marquez /root]# uname -a
Linux marquez.internal.net 2.1.106 #2 Mon Jun 15 21:02:54 EDT 1998 i686 unknown
[root@marquez /root]# uptime
3:07pm up 2 days, 17:39, 7 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
[root@marquez /root]#

[root@marquez /root]# umount /usr/local
[root@marquez /root]# fsck /usr/local
Parallelizing fsck version 1.10 (24-Apr-97)
e2fsck 1.10, 24-Apr-97 for EXT2 FS 0.5b, 95/08/09
/dev/sda7: clean, 1901/102400 files, 181064/408146 blocks
[root@marquez /root]# umount /opt
[root@marquez /root]# fsck /opt
Parallelizing fsck version 1.10 (24-Apr-97)
e2fsck 1.10, 24-Apr-97 for EXT2 FS 0.5b, 95/08/09
/dev/sda5: clean, 3396/263160 files, 112614/1051334 blocks
[root@marquez /root]#


No problems here. 2.1.106+ac2 is still the most stable 2.1 kernel I've
seen. --jmg

Alan Cox Wrote:

From: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox)
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 15:55:42 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Corruption in 2.1.106

Im having fun trying to pin this down for definite as Im using new hardware
but it definitely appears that 2.1.105 (and + patches) is stablish on my
hardware. 2.1.106 (with or without patches) is corrupting the file system -
and normally in ways that dont show up until you force an fsck by hand
when you find bad blocks, duplicate blocks and interesting crap lurking
on the wrong parts of the disk.


Are other people seeing 2.1.106 corrupting disks and memory on x86 ?

Alan


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:43    [W:1.817 / U:0.188 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site