Re: Occasional crash reports

Re: Occasional crash reports

[Iain Sandoe]

On Sat, Aug 18, 2001, Robert E Brose II wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 09:59:05PM -0500, Takashi Oe wrote:
>> I don't really know, but I can confirm that both 2.2.x and 2.4.x kernels
>> are unstable on a beige g3 and a bmac equipped b/w g3.  I can crash them
>> rather easily with regular programs, given a day or two.  I have not seen
>> similar instability on other machines (dual g4, 7600, all nubus).
>> Unfortunately, I don't have any time to track it down right now  :(
>
> I've been able to trace that to the mace and bmac ethernet drivers, which
> are *very* unreliable in 2.2.  Get the latest drivers from Donald Becker for
> tulip, rtl8139, eepro100, etc. and you're set.  I haven't tried 2.4 yet.

apropos bmac - is there a dbdma problem?
I think Takashi did a dbdma fix ... did that go in?

> -- end of forwarded message --
>
> Mace is still unreliable in 2.4. It's always been just plain unreliable
> for me on 7200, 7500 and 7600's.

 - are these clones or Apple originals?
we found other dbdma problems on clone 7x00 machines for PowerComputing (in
the sound side) ...

might be worth checking that there are no cases of "DEAD" status coming up
on the Mace driver...

as I say, booting with the BootX *init* (rather than the application) bmac,
at least, seems reliable on g3/beige (don't use Mace much).

ciao,
Iain.

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Mace and Bmac ethernet drivers [was: Occasional crash reports]

[Mike Fedyk]

On Sat, Aug 18, 2001 at 12:16:58PM +0100, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2001, Robert E Brose II wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 09:59:05PM -0500, Takashi Oe wrote:
> >> I don't really know, but I can confirm that both 2.2.x and 2.4.x kernels
> >> are unstable on a beige g3 and a bmac equipped b/w g3.  I can crash them
> >> rather easily with regular programs, given a day or two.  I have not seen
> >> similar instability on other machines (dual g4, 7600, all nubus).
> >> Unfortunately, I don't have any time to track it down right now  :(
> >
> > I've been able to trace that to the mace and bmac ethernet drivers, which
> > are *very* unreliable in 2.2.  Get the latest drivers from Donald Becker for
> > tulip, rtl8139, eepro100, etc. and you're set.  I haven't tried 2.4 yet.
>
> apropos bmac - is there a dbdma problem?
> I think Takashi did a dbdma fix ... did that go in?
>
> > -- end of forwarded message --
> >
> > Mace is still unreliable in 2.4. It's always been just plain unreliable
> > for me on 7200, 7500 and 7600's.
>
>  - are these clones or Apple originals?
> we found other dbdma problems on clone 7x00 machines for PowerComputing (in
> the sound side) ...
>

They were all origional Apple products.  7200, 6500 (which has no built in
ethernet), and beige g3 (oldworld).

> might be worth checking that there are no cases of "DEAD" status coming up
> on the Mace driver...
>
> as I say, booting with the BootX *init* (rather than the application) bmac,
> at least, seems reliable on g3/beige (don't use Mace much).
>

What's your best uptime for the g3?  I have one setup as a ipsec
gateway/firewall, and it didn't last over 28 days.  Add a tulip card (it
already had one for firewall, now has two...) and I now have 70 days uptime.

Also note: Mace has only worked over two days for me in about 20% of my
7200s (I have about 15) and in the case where it was able to reach 14 days
uptime, I was seeing kernel memory corruption, but no oops or crashes, just
owkward behavior.  Same solution, add another ethernet (this one has
eepro100, and tulip) and it now has 90 days uptime.

If anyone wants to try to fix the mace driver, I'd be happy to test any
patches available.

Mike

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Mace and Bmac ethernet drivers [was: Occasional crash reports]

[Iain Sandoe]

On Sat, Aug 18, 2001,  Mike Fedyk wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2001 at 12:16:58PM +0100, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>> as I say, booting with the BootX *init* (rather than the application) bmac,
>> at least, seems reliable on g3/beige (don't use Mace much).

> What's your best uptime for the g3?  I have one setup as a ipsec
> gateway/firewall, and it didn't last over 28 days.  Add a tulip card (it
> already had one for firewall, now has two...) and I now have 70 days uptime.

Hmmm.  The g3/beige is my dev box - the interval between reboots for new
kernels is much less than that ;-)

I don't (necessarily) think this is the same problem - with the corruption I
was seeing  booting using the BootX *app* I was struggling to get 2 hours
uptime ... it was crashing with illegal instruction oopses in the network
stack.

ciao,
Iain.

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Occasional crash reports

[Robert E Brose II]

User Iain Sandoe says:
> >
> > Mace is still unreliable in 2.4. It's always been just plain unreliable
> > for me on 7200, 7500 and 7600's.
>
>  - are these clones or Apple originals?
> we found other dbdma problems on clone 7x00 machines for PowerComputing (in
> the sound side) ...

All are Apple originals.

> might be worth checking that there are no cases of "DEAD" status coming up
> on the Mace driver...

I am setting up a test machine as I write this. I'm setting up YDL 2.0
on a 7200 using the internal mace. I'll get it to fail (not hard) and
put some printk's in the "DEAD" tests in mace.c

> as I say, booting with the BootX *init* (rather than the application) bmac,
> at least, seems reliable on g3/beige (don't use Mace much).

Will check that as well and let you know.

> ciao,
> Iain.
>

Bob
--
Robert E. Brose II    N0QBJ
http://www.jriver.com/~bob/
bob@kunk.jriver.com

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/