From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262526AbTDLXfu (for ); Sat, 12 Apr 2003 19:35:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262545AbTDLXfu (for ); Sat, 12 Apr 2003 19:35:50 -0400 Received: from ca-fulrtn-cuda2-c6a-113.anhmca.adelphia.net ([68.66.9.113]:32896 "EHLO shrike.mirai.cx") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262526AbTDLXft (for ); Sat, 12 Apr 2003 19:35:49 -0400 Message-ID: <3E98A597.6000507@tmsusa.com> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 16:47:35 -0700 From: J Sloan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joshua Kwan Cc: linux-kernel Subject: Re: Bug: slab corruption in 2.5.67-mm1 References: <3E988DA2.4080600@tmsusa.com> <20030412232425.GA24920@triplehelix.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Joshua Kwan wrote: >On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 03:05:22PM -0700, J Sloan wrote: > > >>I had run 2.5.67-mm1 for some days and for >>the most part it ran well in it's duties as dns, >>squid, vpn/firewall and postfix server, with >>the only oddity being the ide messages which >>I reported earlier. >> >> > >You're insane running a -mm kernel on a production machine, IMHO. > Oh please. This is my network, and there is nothing insane about it - FYI the stock 2.4.18 RH kernel had severe stability problems on this system - OTOH 2.5.67-mm1 is like the rock of gibraltar in comparison. :-) >They're good for desktop use but in my experience anything that needs to >stay up for more than a few days should at LEAST use one of the >stability-oriented patches like -mjb or -osdl, if not the vanilla >kernel. > Sorry, -mm fixes a number of bugs that render the vanilla kernel unusable for me. >2.5-mm typically goes nuts with such errors as you described after a >few days of uptime, as far as I've seen and noticed. These bugs will >probably eventually be fixed, but at this time, it's still unstable. > By running 2.5 and reporting, maybe we can help expose those bugs - but since .65 or so, I haven't really seen any show stopper issues - everything works, and works well, on my particular hardware, and workload. > >I wouldn't run anything above 2.4.20 on a box that does what you >describe.. > > My clients get official vendor kernels, but in the sanctity of my own domain I run the latest and greatest and take a look at what's coming - what I'm running today is a sneak preview of what my clients will be running tomorrow. Joe