lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Jun]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: linux/alpha 2.0.30 - high uptime = hosed machine?
    I am seeing a huge number of "memory violation" error messages on mine
    (EB164, 2.0.30, tulip, aic7xxx, ncr53c8xx).

    After a while, the available VM becomes uselessly low, and the system
    bombs with scary messages like:

    /usr/sbin/sendmail: error in loading shared libraries
    libc.so.6: failed to map segment from shared object: Cannot allocate memory
    /usr/sbin/sendmail/usr/sbin/sendmail/usr/sbin/sendmail/usr/sbin/sendmail: error in loading shared libraries
    libc.so.6: failed to map segment from shared object: Cannot allocate memory : error in loading shared libraries

    This is the point of no return. With the amount of activity this
    system gets, I can't even guarantee 24hrs of uptime. Is there a FAQ,
    or pointers to protective measures to be taken? Perhaps further
    diagnostics that can be run to help? The programs that cause the most
    distress are: mhttpd (meta-html daemon) zmailer, and screen.

    > 3. After running for a long time, when running a couple of big jobs
    > the machine seized up. From the noise the disk was making, it
    > seemed like it was trying to swap to free memory, but was unable.
    > Shift-scroll-lock was showing 0kb free pages. I forget what it
    > showed for the number of CLEAN/LOCKED/DIRTY buffers. I eventually
    > had to power cycle the machine. It wouldn't respond to
    > cntrl-alt-del, programs were seg faulting all over the place, ...

    Ditto.

    > Is there a memory problem causing such things?

    > I heard something about memory fragmentation problems. Is this a
    > symptom? Has it been fixed/improved in the 2.0.34? Has it been
    > fixed/improved in the 2.1 series?

    Good luck (I don't mean that sarcasticly. I sincerely wish you the
    best of luck). I haven't been able to get 2.0.34 to run stably.
    Neither the tree from redhat's 5.1 kernel-source package (aic7xxx does
    me in eventually) nor the standard 2.0.34 distribution with updated
    aic7xxx patches give me reliable performance. It's much faster while
    it runs, though.

    Does anyone have any recommendations? Any and all suggestions are welcome.

    -Peter

    -
    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:0.022 / U:88.696 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site