RE: TUX Crashes Under Stress

[dean gaudet <dean-list-tux-list arctic org>]

the ac6 patch didn't update its version string from ac5 ... and i don't
think ingo added a TUX suffix to the version string in H3/4 ... so if
you're going by uname output alone you might be mislead :)

-dean

On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Phil Oester wrote:

> Ok - it was H2.  It wasn't a process eating up 100% cpu - it was the system
> itself.  Top didn't show any process using a significant amount of cpu.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tux-list-admin@redhat.com [mailto:tux-list-admin@redhat.com]On
> Behalf Of Ingo Molnar
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 2:04 PM
> To: tux-list@redhat.com
> Subject: RE: TUX Crashes Under Stress
>
>
>
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Phil Oester wrote:
>
> > In a possibly related situation, I'm using a Tux-patched 2.4.2 (forget
> > the number, but its AC5 and was uploaded today) as a qmail server, and
>
> (the latest, H3 patch is ac6-based.)
>
> > had to rollback to a 2.2 kernel because after injecting a few thousand
> > emails, *one* of the two processors gets pegged at 100% and brings the
> > box to its knees. The box runs fine on 2.2.
>
> hm, do you remember which process or processes used up 100% CPU time? Was
> it kswapd? Or qmail?
>
> 	Ingo
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tux-list mailing list
> tux-list@redhat.com
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/tux-list
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tux-list mailing list
> tux-list@redhat.com
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/tux-list
>