dann frazier schrieb: > On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 12:40:05PM +0100, David Ayers wrote: > >>Linux demo 2.6.18-5-k7 #1 SMP Sat Dec 1 23:28:28 UTC 2007 i686 GNU/Linux >> >>Dec 18 07:09:16 demo kernel: BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at >>virtual address 40000000 >>Dec 18 07:09:16 demo kernel: printing eip: >>Dec 18 07:09:16 demo kernel: c0141d20 >>Dec 18 07:09:16 demo kernel: *pde = 00000000 >>Dec 18 07:09:16 demo kernel: Oops: 0000 [#1] >>Dec 18 07:09:16 demo kernel: SMP >>Dec 18 07:09:16 demo kernel: Modules linked in: ip6table_filter ip6_tables >>ipv6 tun iptable_raw xt_policy xt_multiport ipt_ULOG ipt_TTL ipt_ttl ipt_TOS >>ipt_tos ipt_TCPMSS ipt_SAME ipt_REJECT ipt_REDIRECT ipt_recent ipt_owner >>ipt_NETMAP ipt_MASQUERADE ipt_LOG ipt_iprange ipt_hashlimit ipt_ECN ipt_ecn >>ipt_DSCP ipt_dscp ipt_CLUSTERIP ipt_ah ipt_addrtype ip_nat_tftp >>ip_nat_snmp_basic ip_nat_pptp ip_nat_irc ip_nat_ftp ip_nat_amanda >>ip_conntrack_tftp ip_conntrack_pptp ip_conntrack_netbios_ns ip_conntrack_irc >>ip_conntrack_ftp ts_kmp ip_conntrack_amanda xt_tcpmss xt_pkttype xt_physdev >>bridge xt_NFQUEUE xt_MARK xt_mark xt_mac xt_limit xt_length xt_helper xt_dccp >>xt_conntrack xt_CONNMARK xt_connmark xt_CLASSIFY xt_tcpudp xt_state >>iptable_nat ip_nat ip_conntrack iptable_mangle nfnetlink iptable_filter >>ip_tables x_tables dm_snapshot dm_mirror loop amd64_agp agpgart i2c_viapro >>shpchp pci_hotplug parport_pc parport pcspkr i2c_core psmouse floppy evdev >>rtc serio_raw ide_disk via82cxxx gen er >> ic ide_core processor 8139too e100 >>Dec 18 07:09:16 demo kernel: sis900 via_rhine mii forcedeth r8169 sata_via >>sata_uli sata_promise sata_mv sata_sis sata_sil sata_nv libata ext3 jbd >>mbcache sd_mod scsi_mod dm_mod linear faulty multipath raid10 raid1 raid0 >>md_mod >>Dec 18 07:09:16 demo kernel: CPU: 0 >>Dec 18 07:09:16 demo kernel: EIP: 0060:[<c0141d20>] Not tainted VLI >>Dec 18 07:09:16 demo kernel: EFLAGS: 00010006 (2.6.18-5-k7 #1) >>Dec 18 07:09:16 demo kernel: EIP is at find_lock_page+0x20/0x77 > > > I suggest running memtest86 on your system to see if your memory is > failing.
Hmm... thanks for the suggestion, but I wont be able to that (at least not myself)... This system is a hosted root server (setup a few months ago with this being the first oops). Now if you're saying there is a strong indication that this really has to do with memory hardware, then I would ask the hoster how much it would cost me to have them run a memtest if the problem reoccurs... but it's not something I'd like to do if it can be avoided. would the output of /proc/meminfo help somehow? Cheers, David -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
