----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter 'Luna' Runestig" <[email protected]>
To: "Linux Kernel Mailing list" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 7:29 PM
Subject: PROBLEM: 2.2.19pre7 opps on low mem machine
> [1.] One line summary of the problem:
> Oops with 2.2.19pre7 on memory stressed, old PC.
>
> [2.] Full description of the problem/report:
> An old 486/66 with 20 Meg memory runs a a firewall at home. Probably runs
> too much for that amount of memory (sendmail, bind, ntpd and FreeSWAN
VPN),
> but I can't find any more memory modules! I have gotten four or five oops
> the last week or so (in different processes), running 2.2.18. Stepped up
to
> 2.2.19pre7 and hooked up a serial console two days ago, now I got one
again.
>
> [4.] Kernel version (from /proc/version):
> Linux version 2.2.19pre7 ([email protected]) (gcc version 2.95.2
19991024
> (release)) #1 Mon Jan 22 11:57:12 CET 2001
OK, following the reiserfs/compiler thread, I can see now that my bug report
may have been ignored since I was using a non-kosher compiler (although I
have used it since late October -99 without any problems). Or, it might not
have been ignored, just nobody told me he/she wasted some time on it. Since
it seems to be hardware related; that oops wasn't the only one, and after
some more strange behaviour, I moved the hard drive to another, almost
identical, PC, with even less memory, 16 MB (but this one I have the chips
to run 48 MB, but I wanted to stress it). And it's been running for a week
now, like a clock.
So, sorry for the false alarm!
Cheers,
Peter
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter 'Luna' Runestig (fd. Altberg), Sweden <[email protected]>
PGP Key ID: 0xD07BBE13
Fingerprint: 7B5C 1F48 2997 C061 DE4B 42EA CB99 A35C D07B BE13
AOL Instant Messenger Screenname: PRunestig
> OK, following the reiserfs/compiler thread, I can see now that my bug report
> may have been ignored since I was using a non-kosher compiler (although I
> have used it since late October -99 without any problems). Or, it might not
> have been ignored, just nobody told me he/she wasted some time on it. Since
> it seems to be hardware related; that oops wasn't the only one, and after
> some more strange behaviour, I moved the hard drive to another, almost
> identical, PC, with even less memory, 16 MB (but this one I have the chips
> to run 48 MB, but I wanted to stress it). And it's been running for a week
> now, like a clock.
Thanks for the info. I dont ignore gcc 2.95 stuff with 2.2 nowdays since Im
pretty sure 2.2 + gcc 2.95 is solid