Package: src:linux
Version: 3.2.68-1+deb7u6
Followup-For: Bug #755503
Dear Maintainer,
*** Please consider answering these questions, where appropriate ***
* What led up to the situation?
rsync backups from kvm guests to nfs mounted usb drive all on this host.
* What exactly did you do
On 06/01/13 02:44, Ben Hutchings wrote:
If I understand your original report correctly, the tg3 driver in Debian
kernel version 2.6.32-45 fails periodically and the driver in version
3.2.20-1~bpo60+1 does not. So we need to look for a fix to the driver
that was made between those versions.
The combination of Squeeze, and the current driver from Broadcom seems to be
stable. Note: The hardware is a HP ML115.
$ sudo ifconfig eth0
[sudo] password for elbournb:
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:21:5a:d3:d0:0c
inet addr:192.168.2.10 Bcast:192.168.2.255
On 23/07/12 07:58, Berni Elbourn wrote:
The combination of Squeeze, and the current driver from Broadcom seems to be
stable. Note: The hardware is a HP ML115.
$ sudo ifconfig eth0
[sudo] password for elbournb:
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:21:5a:d3:d0:0c
inet addr:192.168.2.10 Bcast
Just to confirm again no real improvement after installing the latest software
from the broadcom site...
$ sudo ethtool -i eth0
driver: tg3
version: 3.122n
firmware-version: 5722-v3.07, ASFIPMI v6.02
bus-info: :11:00.0
I note the firmware version has not changed. And there are dropped
Today with this driver:
$ sudo ethtool -i eth0
driver: tg3
version: 3.121
firmware-version: 5722-v3.07, ASFIPMI v6.02
bus-info: :11:00.0
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:21:5a:d3:d0:0c
inet addr:192.168.2.10 Bcast:192.168.2.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
inet6 addr:
Package: firmware-linux-nonfree
Version: 0.35~bpo60+1
Severity: normal
With standard squeeze kernel seemingly once a day the nic stops
working. Looking at the switch port it seems the nic is transmitting (or
retransmitting) something as fast as possible. A simple ifdown/ifup
seems to cure for
Hi,
Some spookiness last night:
Jan 25 00:06:04 sv42 kernel: [40921.884095] INFO: task automount:4367 blocked
for more than 120 seconds.
Jan 25 00:06:04 sv42 kernel: [40921.884103] echo 0
/proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs disables this message.
Jan 25 00:06:04 sv42 kernel:
On 24/10/11 16:24, Anders Boström wrote:
Hi!
We have got this problem on a NFS-server running Debian stable
amd64. The server has 8Gbyte memory and at times quite high load, but
mostly NFSv3. However, I can't experiment with the patch, this server
is too important and it is hard to schedule
The trick to do task || task in cron did work several times.
I am very grateful but (would you believe it) only yesterday the system
was moved onto something with far more memory. :-(
I doubt it will suffer the problem again. If this becomes an issue for
others I would be happy to set-up a
Instead of switching to cifs, I tried swapiness=100, and just doubling
up on the backup job:
25 23 * * * disk-backup || (sleep 100; disk-backup)
Last night the first backup failed, second backup worked. Yippee.
The first backup failed by a simple test for the presence of a file the
nfs
Package: linux-2.6
Version: 2.6.32-35
Severity: normal
The mount failure occures on this system about 1 in 10. Subsequent mounts work
just fine. This never happened on Lenny. Sorry if this is a duplicate but bts
was down when I ran reportbug. Google seems to go for this:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-nfs/msg22248.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e37a511.4080...@elbournb.fsnet.co.uk
On 02/08/11 11:49, Ben Hutchings wrote:
Does this system have swap enabled?
Afraid so...
elbournb@sv22:~$ free -m
total used free sharedbuffers cached
Mem: 184172 11 0 5 69
-/+ buffers/cache: 98
The bug is still present in Google Chrome Stable version: 5.0.375.86
Ben Hutchings wrote:
snip I think we should actually apply a second patch. So, please
try the two attached patches snip Please test this fix by following
the instructions at
Just a snippet on the Google Sandbox. From here:
http://blog.chromium.org/2008/10/new-approach-to-browser-security-google.html
The entire HTML rendering and JavaScript execution is isolated to its
own class of processes; the renderers. These are the ones that live in
the sandbox.
...perhaps
Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 06:50:57PM +0100, Berni Elbourn wrote:
[...]
PS: For future how does one build the official headers common package
on Amd64?
Do a full package build with 'pkg-buildpackage -B'.
Ben.
Wow. Thanks. Also it seems:-
# fakeroot debian/rules binary
On 27/06/10 03:02, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 12:01 +0100, Berni Elbourn wrote:
Re: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=570350
Sorry but the patch at the bottom of the thread doesn't seem to like me:
Preparation:
apt-get source linux-2.6
apt-get install build
Strangely none of the updates to the original bug came through on email
... I am so sorry but I missed the testing requests there. The bug is
now archived. So I am posting just to close the case (as it were) for me.
A whole new version google-chrome-stable is now in the google's
repositories
Berni Elbourn wrote:
Strangely none of the updates to the original bug came through on email
... I am so sorry but I missed the testing requests there. The bug is
now archived. So I am posting just to close the case (as it were) for me.
A whole new version google-chrome-stable is now
Re: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=570350
Sorry but the patch at the bottom of the thread doesn't seem to like me:
Preparation:
apt-get source linux-2.6
apt-get install build-essential fakeroot
apt-get build-dep linux-2.6
cd linux-2.6-2.6.26
fakeroot debian/rules source
Ben Hutchings wrote:
There are some questions on the Chrome/Chromium bug report
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=35440. Could you
please have a look and try to answer them?
Chrome duly bug updated. I was able to do quite a lot of chrome browsing
including flash without
Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 09:33 +, Berni Elbourn wrote:
Package: linux-2.6
Version: 2.6.26-21lenny3
Severity: normal
This may relate to #542115. This system kernel is new (HP ML115) and
most definitely not tainted with ndiswrappers or nvidia. I am logging
the report just
Package: linux-2.6
Version: 2.6.26-21lenny3
Severity: normal
This may relate to #542115. This system kernel is new (HP ML115) and most
definitely not tainted with ndiswrappers or nvidia. I am logging the report
just prior to repooting. System seems stable enough.
This could be pretty grim for
Just a quickie...the tainting here comes from ndiswrapper 1.55 compiled
from source...needed for my wireless tricky to test without it.
But similar:
Nov 20 10:08:22 hp6715 kernel: [ 3785.742833] Not cloning cgroup for
unused subsystem ns
Nov 20 10:09:15 hp6715 kernel: [ 3838.702413]
Andres Salomon wrote:
2. Severities
Many submitters believe that their bug meets one of the following
criteria for high severity. We interpret them as follows and will
downgrade as appropriate:
'critical: makes unrelated software on the system (or the whole
system) break...'
The bug must
I'm new here. And all this looks good to me.
I particularly value clarification to try and use reportbug on all
submissions. Already fallen foul of that one ;-) sorry.
Please be aware though that in time constrained situations (real users
wanting there systems back etc) we may not be able to
Sorry but after running for weeks with no problems using this kernel:
Linux version 2.6.26-2-amd64 (Debian 2.6.26-17lenny1) (da...@debian.org) (gcc version 4.1.3 20080704 (prerelease)
(Debian 4.1.2-25)) #1 SMP Sun Jul 26 20:35:48 UTC 2009
On a Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2372 HE
Ben Hutchings wrote:
Please note that the 'task name:pid blocked for more than time'
messages are *symptoms* and in no way indicate a particular bug. The
more people add to this bug report, the less meaningful it becomes.
snip
Cool. What do you really want from from us use to help pin this
Berni Elbourn wrote:
;-) Gibberish:
That is good to hear. How can I help here to help me to stabilise our
systems?
How can I help you to help me stabilise our systems?
Berni
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Grim news there is the same behaviour using 2.6.30...
ski:~# cat /proc/version
Linux version 2.6.30-bpo.1-amd64 (Debian 2.6.30-5~bpo50+1)
(no...@debian.org) (gcc version 4.3.2 (Debian 4.3.2-1.1) ) #1 SMP Wed
Aug 5 11:07:47 UTC 2009
And logs:
Aug 6 22:54:39 ski kernel: [ 2160.704087] INFO:
Linux sv28 2.6.26-2-amd64 #1 SMP Fri Mar 27 04:02:59 UTC 2009 x86_64
GNU/Linux
CPU0: Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2372 HE stepping 02
Once again during the monthly mdadm re-sync ... And it started at the
time of normal system backups.
Here's the log snippet:
Aug 6 04:03:04 sv28
See also Bug #517449
Linux sv28 2.6.26-2-amd64 #1 SMP Fri Mar 27 04:02:59 UTC 2009 x86_64
GNU/Linux
CPU0: Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2372 HE stepping 02
Seemingly during the monthly mdadm re-sync ... And it started at the
time of normal system backups.
Here's the log snippet:
Aug
dann frazier wrote:
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 08:14:07AM +0100, Berni Elbourn wrote:
Linux sv28 2.6.26-2-amd64 #1 SMP Fri Mar 27 04:02:59 UTC 2009 x86_64
GNU/Linux
Please include the output of /proc/version, it is difficult to map
this back to an actual kernel version. But.. it looks like you
dann frazier wrote:
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 08:24:40AM +0100, Berni Elbourn wrote:
See also Bug #517449
Note that soft lockups are a class of bug, they can have many
causes. If you think this is related to the SCHED_IDLE issue, please
let us know why - I don't see a relation myself.
I am
Berni Elbourn wrote:
dann frazier wrote:
2009.06.10 according to:
http://packages.qa.debian.org/l/linux-2.6.html
Thanks for the heads up. I am now testing this:
Linux version 2.6.26-2-amd64 (Debian 2.6.26-17lenny1) (da...@debian.org)
(gcc version 4.1.3 20080704 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.2
Hai Zaar wrote:
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 5:12 AM, Ben Hutchingsb...@decadent.org.uk wrote:
You found some scheduling changes made post-2.6.28 which seemed to deal
with this bug. However, that cannot be the full story because they are
modifying code which was added after 2.6.26.
The attached
Hi,
Re: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=517449
Can I help move this forward? I have two systems suffering this pain...
There are some patches mentioned for 2.6.26 and also mention of 2.6.29.
I am sorry because I can not get Google to tell me how Debian Xen
kernels are patched
This also happened in a Lenny Dom0 last night during the monthly mdadm
check. I had to drive to the site and magic-sysrq the system back into life:
Linux sv28 2.6.26-2-xen-amd64 #1 SMP Fri Mar 27 07:12:15 UTC 2009 x86_64
GNU/Linux
Jun 7 00:59:00 sv28 kernel: [1305825.753958] INFO: task
I ran a stress in a Lenny 2.6.26-2-686 hvm domu as follows:
# stress --cpu 16 --io 16 --vm 16 --hdd 16 --timeout 3600
Ok its a pretty heavy test for a dual core 2Gb domain...but I got the
same blocked task behaviour:
INFO: task stress:9878 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
Also:
hda:
Thanks, but is there a work round for this bug?
Berni
PS: How did you come up with 1.4 from 1:7.3+18?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Known, some problem in the /dev/mem logic. As only X.org 1.4 still uses this
interface, I tend to ignore it until someone provides a patch.
Newer versions uses the /sys/bus/pci/devices/*/resource* interface, can
you please check if at least this works?
I can confirm this bug in stable: Lenny
dann frazier wrote:
Berni,
A 2.6.23 should be uploaded to sid today - please test that when its
available and let us know if it also fixes this issue for you. In the
meantime, it would also be useful if you could test one of the 2.6.23
snaphots. See http://wiki.debian.org/DebianKernel for
Berni Elbourn wrote:
dann frazier wrote:
Berni,
A 2.6.23 should be uploaded to sid today - please test that when its
available and let us know if it also fixes this issue for you. In the
meantime, it would also be useful if you could test one of the 2.6.23
snaphots. See http://wiki.debian.org
Berni Elbourn wrote:
Package: linux-image-2.6.22-3-amd64
Version: 2.6.22-6
Severity: normal
The last report on the console is disable non boot CPUs. I don't recall that from
earlier versions. Console reponds to show_memory combination.
Problem occurs with ndiswrapper removed, also and gdm
Package: linux-image-2.6.22-3-amd64
Version: 2.6.22-6
Severity: normal
The last report on the console is disable non boot CPUs. I don't recall that
from
earlier versions. Console reponds to show_memory combination.
Problem occurs with ndiswrapper removed, also and gdm stopped.
Significantly
46 matches
Mail list logo
