how long can you run browser buster? we need a bunch of data on the max amount of uptime that is possible leading into 0.9 and 0.9.1... grab a recent trunk build and go surfing... http://komodo.mozilla.org/buster/test_url_25.html if you crash or hang add your data to http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76125 thanks. chris h.Title: Bug 76125 - browser busting for 4 hours hangs system and then crashes browser
This is Bugzilla: the Mozilla bug system. For more information about what Bugzilla is and what it can do, see mozilla.org's bug pages.
Additional Comments: People not in the "Netscape Confidential" group can see this bug Only people in the "Netscape Confidential" group can see this bug Leave as NEW Accept bug (change status to ASSIGNED) Resolve bug, changing resolution to FIXEDINVALIDWONTFIXLATERREMINDWORKSFORME Resolve bug, mark it as duplicate of bug # Reassign bug to Reassign bug to owner and QA contact of selected component
View Bug Activity
|
Format For Printing
After about 4 hours of running browser buster I get a blue screen with this message from windows. "Terminating the tread due to a stack overflow problem. A Vxb, possibily recently installed, has consumed to much stack space. Increase the settings of Min SPs in System.ini or remove the recently installed Vxb's. There are currently 7 SP's allocated. Press any key to continue." If I hit the "any" key ;-) my machine comes back to life, but then if I try to kill of any browser windows I immediately crash with this stack trace. I've been able to repeat this twice.. Incident ID 29148088 Trigger Time 2001-04-15 19:36:34 Email Address chofmann User Comments browser buster after 4 hours. Build ID 2001041309 Product ID Netscape6.50 Platform ID Win32 Stack Trace nsCacheService::DeactivateAndClearEntry [d:\builds\seamonkey\mozilla\netwerk\cache\src\nsCacheService.cpp, line 1063] PL_DHashTableEnumerate [d:\builds\seamonkey\mozilla\xpcom\ds\pldhash.c, line 460] nsCacheService::ClearActiveEntries [d:\builds\seamonkey\mozilla\netwerk\cache\src\nsCacheService.cpp, line 1047] nsCacheService::Shutdown [d:\builds\seamonkey\mozilla\netwerk\cache\src\nsCacheService.cpp, line 288] nsCacheService::Observe [d:\builds\seamonkey\mozilla\netwerk\cache\src\nsCacheService.cpp, line 1071] nsObserverService::Notify [d:\builds\seamonkey\mozilla\xpcom\ds\nsObserverService.cpp, line 238] NS_ShutdownXPCOM [d:\builds\seamonkey\mozilla\xpcom\build\nsXPComInit.cpp, line 449] NETSCP6.EXE + 0x11d1 (0x004011d1) NETSCP6.EXE + 0x2c07 (0x00402c07) KERNEL32.DLL + 0x1b560 (0xbff8b560) KERNEL32.DLL + 0x1b412 (0xbff8b412) KERNEL32.DLL + 0x19dd5 (0xbff89dd5) ------- Additional Comments From chris hofmann 2001-04-15 20:26 ------- here are some addtional stats from my system at the time of the crash.. Operating System: Windows 98 4.10 build 67766446 Service Pack: A Physical Memory: 128.0 MB Memory Status: Available Total Physical Memory: 3.4 MB 128.0 MB Page File: 1737.9 MB 1920.5 MB Virtual Memory: 1734.3 MB 2044.0 MB we could think about bumping up the SPs in the System.ini in the installer, but I'm thinking we we should figure out a way to get by with system default settings. 4.x runs for many more hours than the 4 I'm seeing in the trunk current builds.. ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2001-04-15 20:37 ------- Any idea what thread got terminated? What else got clobbered when the thread was terminated? Could you continue browsing, or did you only try to shutdown? I can add some simple checks (which "should" be unnecessary) in nsCacheService::DeactivateAndClearEntry, but when a thread gets killed it could leave quite a bit of the browser in a bad state that could be difficult to protect against. The real question is what caused the stack overflow. This stack trace may be the twisted pile of hot metal from a train wreck, but we really want to know is: who put the penny on the tracks. ------- Additional Comments From chris hofmann 2001-04-15 21:09 ------- I went looking for other instances of crashes in nsCacheService::DeactivateAndClearEntry on the Trunk. here is what I came up with. Looks like [EMAIL PROTECTED] might be able to reproduce a similar kind of crash.. stephend, is that news/foo.com (crash on startup) reproducable? 2001041015 2001-04-11 Windows 98 4.90 build 73010104 5321 nsCacheService::DeactivateAndClearEntry 5f451f1a 2001041109 2001-04-12 Windows 98 4.10 build 67766446 34639 nsCacheService::DeactivateAndClearEntry 4ee1a9bd 2001041306 2001-04-13 Windows NT 5.0 build 2195 57 [EMAIL PROTECTED] nsCacheService::DeactivateAndClearEntry 3b4098d1 news/foo.com (crash on startup) 2001041306 2001-04-14 Windows NT 5.0 build 2195 1596 [EMAIL PROTECTED] nsCacheService::DeactivateAndClearEntry 3b4098d1 news/foo.com (crash on startup) 2001041322 2001-04-14 Windows 98 4.10 build 67766446 2747 nsCacheService::DeactivateAndClearEntry e1ea8076 2001041322 2001-04-14 Windows 98 4.10 build 67766446 32143 nsCacheService::DeactivateAndClearEntry 46645697 2001041306 2001-04-14 Windows NT 5.0 build 2195 241 [EMAIL PROTECTED] nsCacheService::DeactivateAndClearEntry 3b4098d1 news/foo.com (crash on startup) Bug List: (30 of 30) First Last Prev Next Show list Query page Enter new bug
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
