Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 8 Sep 1998 10:59:31 -0400 (EWT) | From | "Nicholas J. Leon" <> | Subject | Re: 2.1.120 report [misc. stuff/longish] |
| |
On Tue, 8 Sep 1998, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
# > 2. sluggishness # I'm running UP - perhaps something SMP is broken?
Perhaps. Because under 2.1.119 everything feels as I expect it would. There is a truly noticable different between .119 & .120 (to me).
# > I put today a 3c905 into my box hoping to replace the 3c509 that I # > current have. The 3c509 would constantly get timeouts # # How often do you see these? Looking at the logs, its one every minute # or so, less perhaps.
Sometimes once every 7 seconds (or whatever the timeout is). Sometimes, it will transmit a single packet, timeout, transmit another single packet, timeout ... <ugh!> Very nasty.
# # If this a heavily loaded ethernet segment?
How bout a completely UNLOADED segment? Ie, my two machines are the ONLY two machines? This isn't true, I have about 7 boxes on my localnet, but there is almost no traffic, and for my tests I just disconnected the other machines from my hub [which I am now suspecting as being crap].
# OK - can you copy from one to the other under 2.0.34?
Errrr..... I'm hesitant to boot into 2.0.x, but I will see what happens.
# # > 4. unmounting / at shutdown/reboot doesn't work. # # Can you please explain `doesn't work'?
Ie, / doesn't get unmounted. (/ is busy). Its a known problem. Someone said because /etc/ld.so.cache is being held or something.
G'day!
-- n i c h o l a s j l e o n / elegance through simplicity / / good fortune through truth / http://mrnick.binary9.net / simplicity is elegant / mailto:nicholas@binary9.net
- 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/faq.html
| |