Le 22/10/2012 16:14, Yann Dupont a écrit :
Hello. This mail is a follow up of a message on XFS mailing list. I had
hang with 3.6.1, and then , damage on XFS filesystem.
3.6.1 is not alone. Tried 3.6.2, and had another hang with quite a
different trace this time , so not really sure the 2
the quick answer. That's good news.
>
> > In general is oracle + Kernel 2.4 working ?
>
> Ditto.
>
> The shm and rawio fixes are very recent
>
Ok. That needs some test ...
Yann Dupont.
--
\|/ \|/ Fac. des sciences de Nantes-Linux-Python-IPv6-ATM-BONOM
t was an hardware problem)
Solution :
1) Don't plug anything there :)
2) an updated bios enable a workaround (but I imagine , at a
performance price)
You can have all the info on intel web site. (PDF describing the problem)
Yann Dupont.
\|/ \|/ Fac. des sciences de Nantes-Linux-Python-
nable to be modified /
stuck)
I noticed that 2.4.3 contains some fixs for shared memory -
So the final question IS :
Is oracle 8.1.5 + Kernel 2.4.3 a sane combination ?
In general is oracle + Kernel 2.4 working ?
(BTW, if that matter this is on a 4-xeon Proc + 3GB ram)
Yann Dupont.
--
\|/ \
@dumbo:~$ free
total used free sharedbuffers
cached
Mem:126592 122856 3736 0 100968
8960
-/+ buffers/cache: 12928 113664
Swap: 522104 2352 519752
As we can expect, buffers are large, maybe a little too much ?
Yann
;
>
I have those problems too. The (temporary ?) fix is to raise the
min_free_kb to an higher value.
echo 65535 > /proc/sys/vm/min_free_kbytes
Maybe such an high value is totally silly, but at least I don't have
those messages.
Sincerely yours,
--
Yann Dupont, Cri de l'unive
Lukas Hejtmanek a écrit :
>On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 02:10:31PM +0200, Yann Dupont wrote:
>
>
>>I have those problems too. The (temporary ?) fix is to raise the
>>min_free_kb to an higher value.
>>echo 65535 > /proc/sys/vm/min_free_kbytes
>>
>>Maybe s
Lukas Hejtmanek a écrit :
>On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 02:24:47PM +0200, Yann Dupont wrote:
>
>
>>>I know that kernel 2.6.6-bk4 works. So were there some memory manager changes
>>>since 2.6.6? If so it looks like there are some bugs.
>>>On the other hand, ethe
Lukas Hejtmanek a écrit :
>On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 02:10:31PM +0200, Yann Dupont wrote:
>
>
>>I have those problems too. The (temporary ?) fix is to raise the
>>min_free_kb to an higher value.
>>echo 65535 > /proc/sys/vm/min_free_kbytes
>>
>>Maybe s
ugh CPU to free memory.
>
>
>
Ok, so what you're saying is that turning NAPI off is just slowing down
things enough to not be hit by
this problem , right ?
--
Yann Dupont, Cri de l'università de Nantes
Tel: 02.51.12.53.91 - Fax: 02.51.12.58.60 - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubs
Lukas Hejtmanek a écrit :
>On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 09:23:46AM +0200, Yann Dupont wrote:
>
>
>>Do you have turned NAPI on ??? I tried without it off on e1000 and ...
>>surprise !
>>Don't have any messages since 12H now (usually I got those in less than 1H)
>>
aring / bridge problem ??? (all interface shares
the same IRQ and are after a bridge)
I don't know if this is ac-series specific. I'll try tomorrow.
Any Idea how I can test further ? Without oops it's not easy...
Yann Dupont.
--
\|/ \|/ Fac. des sciences de Nante
Le 10 May 2001 12:08:08 -0400, Jeff Garzik a écrit :
> Yann Dupont wrote:
> I'm working on fixing this right now; until then, the "de4x5" driver
> should work for you.
>
Yes that's true, it's working like a charm now. I didn't know the de4x5
d
Le 14 May 2001 14:36:05 -0400, Jeff Garzik a écrit :
> Mads Martin Jørgensen wrote:
> Attached is a patch against 2.4.4-ac9 which includes the changes found
> in tulip-devel 1.1.6... (tulip-devel is sort of a misnomer; right now
> it's really just a staging and testing point for fixes which go
Le 14 May 2001 14:36:05 -0400, Jeff Garzik a écrit :
> Mads Martin Jørgensen wrote:
> Attached is a patch against 2.4.4-ac9 which includes the changes found
> in tulip-devel 1.1.6... (tulip-devel is sort of a misnomer; right now
> it's really just a staging and testing point for fixes which go
15 matches
Mail list logo
