Re: 2.2.9+ extreme instability

Andre M. Hedrick (hedrick@Astro.Dyer.Vanderbilt.Edu)
Sun, 1 Aug 1999 00:40:12 -0500 (CDT)

On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Peter Amstutz wrote:

> Linux seems to be extremely unstable on my hardware. This seems to be a
> recent problem, I have tried 2.2.9, 2.2.10 and 2.2.11pre2 in an attempt at
> a stable system, but to no avail. My hardware specs:
> Tyan Tomcat IIID with SMP Pentium 200's
> NE2000 clone ethernet card
> ISA Sound Blaster 32
> 2 GB and 4 GB IDE hard disk, floppy, IDE CD-ROM
> Diamond Stealth 3D 2000, Diamond Monster 3D

I have the identical (minus) Diamond Stealth 3D 2000, Diamond Monster 3D.
You need to be able to backspeed the drives if they are UDMA drives or
cripple the ioapic by using BIOS 4.02

> Everything boots up fine, and usually works properly for an hour or two,
> maybe more. Then it seems that almost always the system eventually hard
> locks. No telnet, no ping, no sysreq keys, nothing. Dead to the world.
> So I have to reboot, fsck, etc... It's incredibly frustrating.
> However, sometimes it doesn't die all at once. Several times I have run
> into this: a few processes die on segfault (if I'm in X their windows
> dissapear), then usually X dies and I'm dropped to the console.
> Everything seems to be going alright, but within a few moments the system
> dies completly. It seemed like when I try going to another virtual
> console to log in caused system to ultimatly crash, but it could just be
> coincidence. This exactly has happened on two seperate occasions, and the
> system has just straight hardlocked (no wierd process death first) at
> least half the time I've turned it on this week. Other times it has died
> in screensaver (with the screesaver segfaulted...) Fortunatly I'm not
> relying on this system for serious uptime, but it's beginning to really
> get in the way of even normal usage, and Linux isn't supposed to crash,
> right? :)
> I've checked my logs and they don't seem to log anything. There is some
> info in the debug log about pin/irq mapping which I can send if that might
> have anything to do with anything...
> Anyway, any suggestions would be _greatly_ appreciated. It feels like
> I've used 2.1.x kernels more stable than these 2.2.x kernels... In fact
> I'm probably going to try going back to 2.1.124 or so just to see if it's
> any better, but it would make a little more sense for the stable kernels
> to be stable, right? It's quite frustrating.
> Please reply by personal mail if possible, there's too much traffic on
> linux-kernel for anyone but the dedicated kernel hacker to monitor
> easily...
> ------------------ Peter Amstutz --------------------
> -------------- -------------
> ------- -------
> -----------------------------------------------------
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to
> Please read the FAQ at

Andre Hedrick
The Linux IDE guy

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at