Linux-Advocacy Digest #239, Volume #26 Tue, 25 Apr 00 11:14:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: Grasping perspective... (was Re: Forget buying drestin UNIX...) (Mike Marion)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
(S4eaDra4gon)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
(S4eaDra4gon)
Re: Linux vs. BSD (Marc Childress)
Re: Sell Me On Linux (Mike Marion)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
(S4eaDra4gon)
Re: LILO saves the day ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) (Terry
Porter)
Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) (Mike
Marion)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) (Mike
Marion)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) (Mike
Marion)
Re: Linux from a Windows perspective (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Grasping perspective... (was Re: Forget buying drestin UNIX...)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 06:34:50 GMT
Full Name wrote:
> We also have two Sun Ultra 10's, one Sparc 10 (all running Solaris
> 2.7), an Intel based Linux box and an old HP Unix box. After a recent
> power disruption all 50 NT systems (including the servers) came up
> without any problems. One of the Ultra 10's failed to restart and
> required a file system check. This resulted in down time of our WWW
> server facilities.
Solaris is extremely paranoid about requiring manual intervention when it sees
the slightest glitch in the filesystem after a hard reboot... a lot more
paranoid then I like. However, with the excellent ability to have a serial
console hooked up to a Sun, it's not a big deal since you can get to it quickly
through a remote connection to fix it.
BTW, your web servers aren't on UPSes?
Oh, and Ultra 10s suck! They're basically a PC with a UltraSparc processor.
You want a good Sun box? Get at least an Ultra 2.
> The Sparc 10 was recently re-booted remotely using "sync;sync;reboot
> -l". It failed to start requiring a file system check. This resulted
> in a mad dash to work in the car and complaints from our users.
Man that sucks! I've never seen a sun need an fsck after you properly down it.
Then again.. was it crunching the disk a ton when you did it? If so, you
should've made sure to kill the offending job(s) before trying to reboot it.
> Our Linux box currently has Mandrake 7.x installed. It is only about
> a month old. In that time Linux has been installed four times. The
> first time it was installed with Red Hat 6.x. This was not considered
> secure enough and the switch was made to Mandrake. Unfortunately I
> selected high security and found it rather difficult to get the ftpd
> running. So Mandrake was reinstalled a second time with low security.
No offense, but sounds like admin shortcomings to me. You can make an RH box
much more secure, you don't have to leave the default. Setting up ftp isn't
that hard either.
> Our Unix expert then took on the job of getting NFS running on the
> Linux box to allow backup. Unfortunately the Linux flavour of NFS
> refused to talk to our Solaris box with the tape drive. After almost
> two weeks of full time tinkering (and another install of Mandrake) we
> now have NFS mounts between Linux and Solaris 2.7.
Works out of the box for me. What kind(s) of error messages were you getting?
> At the end of last year we upgraded the Sparc 10 from Solaris 2.5 to
> 2.7. The three of us started at around 10 a.m. and finished most of
> the work by 7pm. This was mainly due to the repartitioning of the two
> hard disks and problems getting the system to boot from the correct
> device. The entire down time was two days. We run Oracle 7 on the
> system and have since discovered the orainst program core dumps if you
> try to run it on a Solaris 2.7 system (known bug). We hope we will
> never have to do a re-install of Oracle.
Did you not bother to check for possible conflicts with the OS or hardware
_before_ trying an upgrade on such an important system. I'm seeing a pattern
here...
Also, a Sparc 10 is pretty damn old now.
> disk space problems on the NT box. The price of a 9GB SCSI disk for
> the Ultra is around $1500. We would need a Sun technician to come out
> and install it. I slotted the IDE in myself. We cannot afford the
Jesus.. you are smoking some serious crack. You can buy any friggin' SCSI
external disk and attach it to a Sparc. $1500 is outrageous, and needing a tech
just to install it only shows more admin shortcomings. I ought to know, I work
on Sun boxes every day at work. We're talking Sparc 5s, 10s (we use them for
dns servers), 20s, U1s, U2s, U60s, U80s, E450s, E420Rs... I even have a Classic
and an LX in my office. They make cool bookends. :)
> Just before Easter we discovered our 24 GB Sun tape drive was filling
> with less than 12 GB transferred. A Sun technician came out and
> replaced the tape drive. Fortunately we have a (rather expensive)
> maintenance contract with Sun. We will test the replacement drive
Yeah they're expensive, but they respond so fast your head spins. And they fix
it... period! Even if it means replacing the whole box ASAP.
> We don't see the need for a maintenance contract for our NT boxes as
> our staff has been pulling apart and assembling PC's for years.
Clearly you have little to no experience with Sun boxes... as seen above.
> access to installed software. Many of them simply refuse to learn any
> Unix and expect us to construct their scripts for them. We cringe
Uh, that's not the fault of Unix.. it's a user education problem. The exact
opposite setup is possible too.
> when a user comes in and wants to start running an X application. We
> push users toward NT equivalents wherever possible. Our Unix users
> consume at least three times as much support time as our NT only
> users. The users themselves clearly prefer to use NT equivalent
> software whenever possible.
Heh.. supporting the engineers I support, it's the exact opposite. Most of our
users cringe whenever they have to use an NT box. Then again, they stress even
our biggest boxes.... but those boxes take that stress, and then some.
> by many different people. Access creates a '.ldb' file that must be
> read/write by all users who simultaneously access the database.
So? Unix system can use a lock file too. That's an app thing. Sun's NFS does
locking too.
> previous day. This was due to one of the administrators inadvertently
> changing one of the settings above. This happens quite often with
Again.. clueless admins.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"What I used was a simple killing-loop: I put in statements like
die:
jmp die
at strategic places. If it locked up, you were ok, if it rebooted, you
knew at least it happened before the die-loop." --Linus Torvalds, Talking about
his early debugging techniques when working on Linux on the x86.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (S4eaDra4gon)
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 06:41:09 GMT
On 24 Apr 2000 12:48:47 +0800, Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 21:40:24 GMT, Sea1Dragon2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I do not believe that Windows NT is any more shitty than Linux. It does
>>have a lot of the same problems Linux does (e.g. bad UI design), and
>>lacks a lot of the same features Linux does. My point above was that
>>something like Windows 98 is an easy target, but it is Linux's primary
>>target.
>Nonsense, Linux has no "target".
So why does the #1 Linux cheerleader site portray Bill Gates as a borg?
>> I would like to challenge Linux users to argue on a _technical_
>>basis
>Anytime :)
>Lets hear something of technical merrit *first* ?
>Your whole post lacks any technical substance inho.
>
>How about remote admin ?
>
>Under Linux I can remotely admin a remote Linux box, using a GUI app
>running on the remote box. Please explain how NT can do this. Your not allowed
>to spend over $10 to obtain this facility either so the comparison remains
>fair.
Nice, but :
1) You chopped off my sentence. My challenge was to hear Linux supporters
demonstrate that Linux is superior to the OS'es _which Unix wiped out_.
Note that this set does not include Windows.
2) I am not an expert in Windows NT, but I do use Terminal Server on
a regular basis, and it seems to be what you want. It is in many ways
quite superior to X, though there are a few things wrong with it. Why
people continue to claim Windows NT does not have remote access when
Terminal Server exists, I just do not understand. Why doesn't it count
in the argument? Because it is not a base product? Neither is X.
>> that their OS is better than the one's which Unix replaced. Any 12
>>year old can understand a few technical advantages Linux has over
>>Windows 98, and I question why Linux users harp on these so much.
>What are you trying to say ?
That most of the issues discussed here are easily understood by 12
years old?
>Please be clear on at least simple insults, if you hope to move into the
>complex world of technical debates.
OK - to begin with, why is Unix's I/O model preferable to a nice
asynchronous I/O model offerred in other systems?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (S4eaDra4gon)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 06:49:16 GMT
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 05:55:11 GMT, Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well in the case of slashdot... while it is frequented by many pro-linux
>people, they try to post stories about anything "nerds" might like. It's not
>a pure Linux site.
Whatever. The only Microsoft news posted on that site are negative (e.g.
the unfolding court drama), which the readers cheer. Positive Microsoft
stories are literally ignored. For example, that site made absolutely no
mention of the Windows 2000 release, even though it was the top
computer story everywhere else.
>Wouldn't mean a thing to most people. You could post the same for qcom
>stock... our stock is way down right now, but it doesn't mean the company
>is doing bad. Right now the stock market just isn't following much common
>sense. Hell, we posted great Q1 earnings again and while the stock went up
>for a day, it's down again... sucks! :/
QCOM is still over half of its 52-week high, but LNUX is about 1/8 of its
52-week high (and barely above its IPO price). There's a difference in
magnitude here.
>It's not the whole community, it's just a vocal group of rabid pro-Linux
>people. There are people like that for all the OSes it seems. The most
>annoying people tend to be heard the most.
I have never heard a Windows user say "Windows is better than _____, but
you do not have the technical competency to understand why". I hear Linux
people say this all the time.
------------------------------
From: Marc Childress <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux vs. BSD
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 00:10:00 -0400
Why so? I preferred FreeBSD over linux on my 166MHz, now I have a
550MHz x2 and was thinking on giving FreeBSD another run.
Marc Childress
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) writes:
>
> > Derek Callaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > How is Linux better than (Free|Net|Open)BSD?
> >
> > It isnt.
>
> Unless you have an SMP machine, that is...
>
> --
> The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
> Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sell Me On Linux
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 06:56:18 GMT
Bart Oldeman wrote:
> Yep. I was looking more at computational power. We know there are Beowulf
> clusters who are doing very well at computational stuff.
Any Sun based beowulfs exist?
Personally, I can't wait to get my hands on a test USparcIII box. :)
> Hmm it might be time to ask the sysadmin to get a newer one then.
If there even is one.. I just doubt that a compiler that old is going to beat
the newer gnu one... I'm sure gnu has figured out how to do some optimisations
on Sparc by now.
> BTW, I don't know how much better last year's g77 is than Sun's own
> FORTRAN compiler. It (Sun's f77) was just the solution offered to me on
> the SPARC.
You should try g77 on sparc. I wonder how it would do.
> b) Or do the (as yet) unsupported (but allowed, no less): install Linux on
> the PC and do the computations locally.
I'd probably go for that option myself. :) More fun to have a box to yourself.
> Dual against single processor: it's not fair! ;-)
Heh... you should try the simulations some of our users run. I had to lock down
a 4Gig 4-450MHz CPU U80 down for one team on Friday because someone needed to
run a sim that needed 3Gig of RAM just to run! It was going to take about 16
hours too. :(
What really sucks is the tool they use for that type of sim isn't
multi-threaded.... yet. AFAIK that is.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Adolescence is a surreal world: kids who don helmets and practice banging into
one another for hours each week are deemed healthy and wholesome, even heroic.
Geeks are branded strange and anti-social for building and participating in one
of the world's truly revolutionary new cultures - the Internet and the World
Wide Web. -- Jon Katz / Slashdot.org
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (S4eaDra4gon)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 06:58:08 GMT
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 06:02:10 GMT, Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hell, I installed Easy CD-Creator v3 on a W2k box two weeks ago. I figured it
>wouldn't work, but thought it was worth a try. It installed without
>complaining, but gave the "this program won't work properly under windows
>2000..." message when I tried to run it. I canceled, then rebooted the box
>into Linux to use my burner. When I went back into w2k (which had been up for
>over a week.. it's definately a much more stable OS then win9x) it BSOD'd.
>It was so hosed that I couldn't boot it _at all_. Not even into safe mode.
>I tried every single boot option on the menu for the hell of it... they all
>either BS'd or hung hard.
This morning my FreeBSD machine (which is my DNS server) spontaneously
ran out of memory. I was able to log in, but any command said "out of
memory", and nothing would run, and it didn't even respond to DNS request.
The machine was down! I had to reboot it. Pretty good run, though - it
was up for about two months. I guess I'll schedule another reboot for
June.
>I've _never_ seen a Unix box that bad. Even when they get hosed to where you
>can't even boot into single user, you can either boot off the net, or a CD and
>edit/delete the file(s) that have screwed the system. I couldn't find a way to
>do that with w2k. I tried booting of the CD, and a floppy, but they didn't let
>me in. Though I admit I didn't look super hard outside of that.. it was easier
>to just reinstall it the next day.
Sounds like what happened to my Linux box last night. I compiled my
new kernel, and went though the obligatory reboot then ran with it,
and then got a kernel panic because the root filesystem couldn't be
mounted. Then I went back to the previous kernel, booted off that, and
got the same message. The filesystem was corrupted! Linux spontaneously
corrupted my filesystem and I had to reinstall! Pretty good run, it
had been up for a whole six weeks. I will schedule another re-installation
for June.
I haven't even _logged out of_ (let alone rebooted) my Windows NT
workstation at work, since December 1999. I have no idea how long
it has been up as that was my first day in the office, but possibly
much longer.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LILO saves the day
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 07:14:09 GMT
The Cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>I'd bet hard disks against floppy drives that your disks could have been
>>resurrected just fine by booting from a linux boot floppy and typing
>>"dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda".
>I just filed that one away for future reference :)
>FWIW I used to use an OS/2 Warp install/startup diskette to resurrect
>sick Windows/DOS formatted hard drives. This was prior to Fat32
>however.
Uhm, just so you don't get a nasty surprise: "Resurrected" up there means
"purged of any silly disk managers, boot managers and/or broken partition
tables". In other words, afterwards your disk will be empty, completely
empty. DON'T DO THIS IF YOU HAVE DATA ON THAT DISK THAT YOU WANT TO KEEP!
Bernie
--
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who
can't read them
Mark Twain
American writer, 1835-1910
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 24 Apr 2000 15:30:35 +0800
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 06:41:09 GMT, S4eaDra4gon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 24 Apr 2000 12:48:47 +0800, Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 21:40:24 GMT, Sea1Dragon2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>I do not believe that Windows NT is any more shitty than Linux. It does
>>>have a lot of the same problems Linux does (e.g. bad UI design), and
>>>lacks a lot of the same features Linux does. My point above was that
>>>something like Windows 98 is an easy target, but it is Linux's primary
>>>target.
>>Nonsense, Linux has no "target".
>
>So why does the #1 Linux cheerleader site portray Bill Gates as a borg?
Beats me, its a free world.
>
>>> I would like to challenge Linux users to argue on a _technical_
>>>basis
>>Anytime :)
>>Lets hear something of technical merrit *first* ?
>>Your whole post lacks any technical substance inho.
>>
>>How about remote admin ?
>>
>>Under Linux I can remotely admin a remote Linux box, using a GUI app
>>running on the remote box. Please explain how NT can do this. Your not allowed
>>to spend over $10 to obtain this facility either so the comparison remains
>>fair.
>
>Nice, but :
>
>1) You chopped off my sentence. My challenge was to hear Linux supporters
>demonstrate that Linux is superior to the OS'es _which Unix wiped out_.
Unix hasnt wiped out anything to my knowledge, you're thinking of a preditory
and law breaking OS.
>Note that this set does not include Windows.
>
>2) I am not an expert in Windows NT, but I do use Terminal Server on
>a regular basis, and it seems to be what you want. It is in many ways
>quite superior to X, though there are a few things wrong with it. Why
>people continue to claim Windows NT does not have remote access when
>Terminal Server exists, I just do not understand. Why doesn't it count
>in the argument? Because it is not a base product? Neither is X.
Wrong.
All Linux distos come with X.
>
>>> that their OS is better than the one's which Unix replaced. Any 12
>>>year old can understand a few technical advantages Linux has over
>>>Windows 98, and I question why Linux users harp on these so much.
>>What are you trying to say ?
>
>That most of the issues discussed here are easily understood by 12
>years old?
>
>>Please be clear on at least simple insults, if you hope to move into the
>>complex world of technical debates.
>
>OK - to begin with, why is Unix's I/O model preferable to a nice
>asynchronous I/O model offerred in other systems?
Please don't waste my time with such vague terms.
Be specific.
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 3 days 14 hours 35 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system.
Date: 23 Apr 2000 23:49:59 -0700
this kid terry from downunder thinks anyone who points a problem in
linux is a wintroll and a liar.
what a pathetic person you must be. you seem to think you are smarter
than the rest too. yet, you project no such image at all. hopefully
not all of us linux users are like you. please go away and get lost,
you give the good linux people who try to really help with linux
problems a bad name.
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 07:55:32 GMT
S4eaDra4gon wrote:
Ok first off... and this is off topic from the discussion.. why are you munging
your From address today? I hope you don't think you're fooling spammers by
doing it, because your Reply-To hasn't changed.
Or is someone pretending to be SeaDragon now?
> 2) I am not an expert in Windows NT, but I do use Terminal Server on
> a regular basis, and it seems to be what you want. It is in many ways
> quite superior to X, though there are a few things wrong with it. Why
> people continue to claim Windows NT does not have remote access when
> Terminal Server exists, I just do not understand. Why doesn't it count
> in the argument? Because it is not a base product? Neither is X.
Probably because it is a different beast that first off, costs a lot more, and
second, X comes with just about any Unix you can get. BTW, you do know that MS
didn't even invent WTS, right? That claim belongs to Citrix.
WTS requires connection from very specific clients, whereas Unix systems can be
remotely accessed via telnet, rsh, ssh (preferred IMO), etc. Also, a remote WTS
session is graphical, period. While they've done a great job in making it's
bandwidth requirement much smaller (it's actually impressive, but again it was
Citrix that did it), it still requires you to be on a box that allows for
graphics. OTOH, I can remotely access a Unix box from a simple text terminal if
necessary. This is a huge win for admins.
Also, All that GUI work that every single connection causes on the WTS box takes
more CPU power. Also, I can do just about everything over a remote link to a
Unix box that I could just as if I were sitting at it, but with WTS I can only
do exactly what I'm allowed. For instance, I might have a program in my homedir
that I downloaded and want to use. Since just about every Unix program can be
copied over and/or compiled on the remote box, it'll run just fine. But since
windows programs increasingly won't work properly (if at all) if they aren't
installed on the windows box so that the registry has all it's entries, I'm
screwed. Unless I'm lucky enough to have admin, or the program doesn't require
it (and a scary amount of programs need admin... even simple things like Palm
Pilot software).
Don't get me wrong. I use WTS quite often (Our IT trouble tracking software
currently only has a windows client, so I use WTS from home to access it) and
it's a big improvement in windows. It allows one to do something that couldn't
be done at all with windows before. It definately has some shortcomings
though.
> That most of the issues discussed here are easily understood by 12
> years old?
So unless it takes a higher then average IQ to understand an issue, then it's
not important? This whole argument makes no sense.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
If Microsoft built cars instead of software, the airbag system would say
"Are you sure?" before going off.
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 08:06:39 GMT
S4eaDra4gon wrote:
> Whatever. The only Microsoft news posted on that site are negative (e.g.
> the unfolding court drama), which the readers cheer. Positive Microsoft
And those cheers are often followed by tons of "you guys are all anti-MS" posts.
Like I said, it's definitely slanted toward Unix and Linux in particular.. but
it's not a pure linux site. It's more of a geeks into computers site.
> QCOM is still over half of its 52-week high, but LNUX is about 1/8 of its
> 52-week high (and barely above its IPO price). There's a difference in
> magnitude here.
Hey, I didn't say we were completely in the toilet.. just that we're down a LOT.
:(
LNUX was definitely _way_ overvalued for awhile there though. Many say we were
too.. but unlike most of the ".com stocks" we actually make money. :)
> I have never heard a Windows user say "Windows is better than _____, but
> you do not have the technical competency to understand why". I hear Linux
> people say this all the time.
You hear some linux people say that, but not all, and most likely not the
majority.
However, not a week goes by that I don't end up talking to someone about
computers who's entire exposure is win/dos and/or mac. Every time they ask me
about Linux or Unix, and every time they're shocked to hear that with Unix
systems, having your machine reboot (whether it was intentionally done, or due
to a crash) is not a normal occurrence. This is one of the things about MS
that has always bothered me: people accept crashes, reboots, etc as normal
computing experiences... when they just don't happen with a properly configured
Unix system. You can get a pre-installed win9x box from a commercial dealer..
and still have random crashes/reboots, without the person making any changes to
the system. MS has clearly improved the stability with NT, but it's still
nowhere near the robust level of Commercial (and most free) Unix OSes.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"640k memory is enough for anyone."
-- Bill Gates
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 08:17:36 GMT
S4eaDra4gon wrote:
> This morning my FreeBSD machine (which is my DNS server) spontaneously
> ran out of memory. I was able to log in, but any command said "out of
> memory", and nothing would run, and it didn't even respond to DNS request.
Did you even try to kill anything? Kill commands will almost always work. I've
always been able to get at least one ps to work if I try a few too.. that's on a
Solaris box though.
Sounds like you need to set the ulimits on that box.
> got the same message. The filesystem was corrupted! Linux spontaneously
> corrupted my filesystem and I had to reinstall! Pretty good run, it
> had been up for a whole six weeks. I will schedule another re-installation
> for June.
Did you even try to boot single user off of a floppy or CD, and try to fsck the
fs?
I can almost guarantee that would've worked. BTW, what kernel was that? If it
was a 2.3, then you were using a development kernel, and they tend to have bugs
in them.
> I haven't even _logged out of_ (let alone rebooted) my Windows NT
> workstation at work, since December 1999. I have no idea how long
> it has been up as that was my first day in the office, but possibly
> much longer.
And I've been logged into a machine in our lab since Jan31. The only reason I
logged out at all was because I moved the box across the room and had to unplug
it. That box is also running stuff 24/7 for me: monitoring tools, it's a
bootserver, mxaudio is playing mp3s (gotta have tunes when I'm working in the
lab :) ), etc.
One neat thing about that box (or any unix box for that matter)... the other
admins can su to themselves and run any app they want as themselves just as if
they'd logged into the console instead of me. Can you even do that Under NT
without logging out?
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
The Matrix is going down for reboot now!
Stopping reality: ....OK
The system is halted. -- yet another sig stolen from /.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux from a Windows perspective
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 08:25:19 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Well, thanks to everyone for their help. I've managed to get both SB16 and
AHA1520 working.
The SCSI card I got working with a LILO append string:
"aha152x=0x340,11,7"
The SB16 I got working by running
pnpdump > isapnp.trial
then checking what it created. Since the AHA152X is already allocated, I
removed any reference to it, and tried
isapnp isapnp.trial
and this generated no errors. I then tried sndconfig and this regenerated
isapnp.conf (which worried me a little!) but it didn't pull the AHA152x
definition back and sound started working. On reboot sound and SCSI were
still working.
I still don't know why the SCSI card wasn't auto detected.
Pete
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
