on Thu, Apr 18, 2002, Jamin W. Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 23:58:41 -0700 > "Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > on Wed, Apr 17, 2002, Jamin W. Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > > Created two copies of the 2.4.16 kernel source and have currently been > > > running two endless compiling loops in SSH sessions to the system. > > > The loops have been running for 4+ hours now, planning to let them run > > > over night. > > > > Sounds like a negative. > > Yea, ran through all night long (~10 hours) until I stopped it and > remounted all the partitions sync'd for the strace on Mozilla.
OK. > > > > You might try mounting your drives 'sync' (synchronous mode), and > > > > launching Mozilla under strace, logging stderr. This may be able to > > > > capture the final system calls of the program. > > > > > > I'll give this a run tomorrow. Hopefully I can readily get Mozilla to > > > drop the system. > > > > You've largely eliminated memory and CPU. > > Well, running the system with sync'd mounts and strace for Mozilla was > extremely slow, It'll do that ;-) > but I did manage to get the system to drop while using Mozilla (during > an attempted opening of freshmeat.net). I ran strace with '-ff -F -o > moz.log' options and now have several trace output files. It appears > to have managed to follow a good number of threads from Mozilla. You're interested in the end of the files. Might want to check your logs: kernel, syslog, and messages particularly. > > Another possible HW problem might be a disk corruption in your swap > > partition. I suggest this just because I now that Mozilla tends to > > grow, and stress swap. Though I would tend toward a driver issue. Not > > sure of a good swap tester, anyone have any suggestions? > > This could be more or less ruled out by turning swap off during one of > the tests, right? I know it wouldn't prove that the swap was good, > but if the system drops without the swap enabled, then we know > something else is to blame (swap could still be bad). Yep. Occam's razor says if you have the same problem with and w/o swap, you're likely looking at some other problem. Complex causes to things are rare. I'm still pretty amazed at how many problems at the office have boiled down to: - Foo wasn't plugged in. - Foo was plugged in incorrectly (wrong port/outlet/connector). - Foo's plug (or cord or cable) was damaged. I won't comment on how many of these I was responsible for ;-) Incidentally, you could create a swap _file_ if you want to give yourself the buffer. > However, if the system won't drop with the swap disabled, then I would > tend to think the swap was the culprit, right? That's a good working hypothesis. Frankly, I'd be surprised if it was the case, but it's possible. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? NextDraft: Your Dinner Party Prep: http://www.nextdraft.com/
pgpoULLIcZ2Bc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
