lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Aug]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Are we going too fast?
> > of them have suffered from one malady or another - from the dual PIII with
> > the VIA chipset and Matrox G400 card, which locks up nicely when I switch
>
> Welcome to wacky hardware. To get a G400 stable on x86 you need at least
>
> XFree86 4.1 if you are running hardware 3D (and DRM 4.1)

I run 4.1.0 on that system. DRM, I don't believe, is currently enabled,
though I'd like it to be.

> 2.4.8 or higher with the VIA fixes

Oooooh. So .8 *does* have fixes for VIA... I think I'll give that a try now.

> Preferably a very recent BIOS update for the VIA box

Hmm. I'll also check VIA to see if they have any updates for this system.
Thanks for the suggestion.

> Of those only the XFree hardware 3d stuff is software bug related.

I'm not currently using 3D - yet the system insists on locking up when I
switch from X to a text console and back. Again, this only occurs with an
SMP kernel (this is an SMP system). This does NOT occur with a uniprocessor
kernel.

> > emergency sync) when attempting to use 'ls' on a mounted QNX filesystem
> > (ls comes up fine, then system crashes - nothing sent to syslog, no errors
> > on screen, nothing!) - and this latest is with 2.4.8!
>
> The qnxfs code is experimental - so I can believe it might fail in 2.4. I'd
> be very interested in info on that one.

Unfortunately, that's all the info I have. Console switching was still
working, so I tried enabling logging to a console - no output. System just
hangs. Any suggestions on what I might try to get more information for you?

> > Should development continue on the latest and supposedly greatest
> > drivers? Or should the existing bugs be fixed first? I've got at least
> > three up there that need taking care of, and I'm sure others on this list
> > have found more. 3 seperate crashes on 3 seperate installs on 3 seperate
> > boxes - that's 100% failure rate. If I get 100% failure on my installs,
> > what are others seeing?
>
> Near enough 0%. But then I try and avoid buying broken chipsets.

I wasn't aware VIA nor Matrox were broken. I've seen someone else mention in
this thread that perhaps some old HOWTOs on hardware need to be maintained
again - I think I agree with that.

> > I like Linux. I'd like to stick with it. But if it's going to
> > continually crash, I'm going to jump ship - and I'll start recommending to
>
> If you want maximum stability you want to be running 2.2 or even 2.0. Newer
> less tested code is always less table. 2.4 wont be as stable as 2.2 for a
> year yet.

Perhaps series name should be changed from 'stable' to something else -
'release'?

> Alan


Mike Edwards

Brainbench certified Master Linux Administrator
http://www.brainbench.com/transcript.jsp?pid=158188
-----------------------------------
Unsolicited advertisments to this address are not welcome.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:57    [W:0.151 / U:0.000 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site