Re: 2.1.120 report [misc. stuff/longish]

Nicholas J. Leon (nicholas@binary9.net)
Tue, 8 Sep 1998 10:59:31 -0400 (EWT)


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