On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Yedidyah Bar-David wrote:
Sorry for not reading it (apparently wasn't here, maybe hackers-il,
but google doesn't find it), but what I usually do is kill -STOP
all of them, and only then kill -SOMETHINGTERMINAL.
Unless the user intended to abuse the system, and wrote a
Nadav Har'El wrote on 2003-06-16:
Indeed it was hackers-il. See my original message in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hackers-il/message/2181
which shows a really nasty fork bomb in 12 bytes of shell code.
Hmm, nasty indeed :-(
and an antidote in
Hello All.
Bottom line: If you haven't done it yet, become root on your computer
and go:
hdparm /dev/hda
or whatever hdX you have as your hard disk.
You'll have a line saying using_dma = 1 (on). But if the line says
that your DMA is off, I suggest start thinking about doing something
about
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 12:06:01PM +0200, Eli Billauer wrote:
Hello All.
Bottom line: If you haven't done it yet, become root on your computer
and go:
hdparm /dev/hda
or whatever hdX you have as your hard disk.
and (at least on redhat) take a look at /etc/sysconfig/harddisks , to
if he was running it manually they it wouldn't have mattered;)
Ely Levy
System group
Hebrew University
Jerusalem Israel
On Sun, 15 Jun 2003, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 12:06:01PM +0200, Eli Billauer wrote:
Hello All.
Bottom line: If you haven't done it yet, become
On Sun, 15 Jun 2003, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
and (at least on redhat) take a look at /etc/sysconfig/harddisks , to
avoid re-running it manually.
Don't enable DMA using hdparm on 865/875 Intel chipsets when using the
SATALink buses, the drives stop responding and the system hangs.
--Ariel
--
On my system (RedHat 9):
$ cat /proc/version
Linux version 2.4.20-8 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version
3.2.2 20030222 (Red Hat Linux 3.2.2-5)) #1 Thu Mar 13 17:54:28 EST
2003
# hdparm -d /dev/hda
/dev/hda:
using_dma= 1 (on)
When I did ``cat /dev/zero junk``, the system did become
Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote on 2003-06-15:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 09:01:07PM +0300, Beni Cherniavsky wrote:
the system gets completely stuck for a few seconds. Increasing the
number increases the stuck time. Isn't a unix suppossed to protect
users from such DOS attacks in some way (just
Nadav Har'El wrote on 2003-06-15:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003, Beni Cherniavsky wrote about Re: SOLVED: Slow Linux response
during disk operations (was: Testing on various computers needed):
Perhaps it does: curiously enough, after doing this a dozen times, it
seems that linux has learnt the
