Re: stability on a sparcstation 5 170mhz
[ Tomas Szepe ] >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> No, sorry, it's a Fujitsu MB86904 which is 110, it seems. But isn't >> 2.2.* stable on most Sparcs? > > Yes, but not on the SS5/170. Oh, OK. >> (Please make your mail client respect my "Mail-Copies-To: nobody" >> header.) Er, that's nonsense. Mail-Copies-To is a news header. The mail equivalent is Mail-Followup-To, IIRC, which I need to (but haven't yet) put into use. Sorry about that. > If there's a broken mail client involved in this thread, it must be > yours -- "somehow" I didn't receive a copy of your post. Why should you? I'm sending to the list. Martin -- "An ideal world is left as an exercise to the reader." -Paul Graham, On Lisp
Re: stability on a sparcstation 5 170mhz
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> I'm running 2.2.19 on my SS5. Uptime of 328 days now, and no stability > >> problems that I've noticed. I use the box as web- (Apache) and > >> mailserver (IMAP and webmail). > > > > That can't be a '/170' then. > > No, sorry, it's a Fujitsu MB86904 which is 110, it seems. But isn't > 2.2.* stable on most Sparcs? Yes, but not on the SS5/170. > (Please make your mail client respect my "Mail-Copies-To: nobody" > header.) If there's a broken mail client involved in this thread, it must be yours -- "somehow" I didn't receive a copy of your post. As for Mail-Copies-To, a quick grep through the mutt docs reveals it's a nonexistent header. -- Tomas Szepe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: stability on a sparcstation 5 170mhz
[ Tomas Szepe ] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> I'm running 2.2.19 on my SS5. Uptime of 328 days now, and no stability >> problems that I've noticed. I use the box as web- (Apache) and >> mailserver (IMAP and webmail). > > That can't be a '/170' then. No, sorry, it's a Fujitsu MB86904 which is 110, it seems. But isn't 2.2.* stable on most Sparcs? (Please make your mail client respect my "Mail-Copies-To: nobody" header.) Martin -- "An ideal world is left as an exercise to the reader." -Paul Graham, On Lisp
Re: stability on a sparcstation 5 170mhz
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > i've got debian woody running with a 2.4.20 kernel on a 170mhz > > sparcstation 5, which, as i understand from ultralinux.org 'is not very > > stable.' and i have to agree... > > I'm running 2.2.19 on my SS5. Uptime of 328 days now, and no stability > problems that I've noticed. I use the box as web- (Apache) and > mailserver (IMAP and webmail). That can't be a '/170' then. T.
Re: stability on a sparcstation 5 170mhz
[ andy bezella ] > i've got debian woody running with a 2.4.20 kernel on a 170mhz > sparcstation 5, which, as i understand from ultralinux.org 'is not very > stable.' and i have to agree... I'm running 2.2.19 on my SS5. Uptime of 328 days now, and no stability problems that I've noticed. I use the box as web- (Apache) and mailserver (IMAP and webmail). Martin -- "An ideal world is left as an exercise to the reader." -Paul Graham, On Lisp
Re: stability on a sparcstation 5 170mhz
On 10 Feb 2003 10:25:00 MDT, andy bezella wrote: >i've got debian woody running with a 2.4.20 kernel on a 170mhz >sparcstation 5, which, as i understand from ultralinux.org 'is not very >stable.' and i have to agree... My woody/sparc5 has always been stable under 2.2.x & unstable under 2.4.x. I have a note that it stayed up for 54 days under 2.2.19. My root file system was corrupted while running 2.4.19 in October. Since reinstalling it's been running 2.2.20 ... crashed once, maybe twice. I'm not totally confident my disc is OK however. Brian Keck
Re: stability on a sparcstation 5 170mhz
On 2/10/03 at 5:52 PM, Peter Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No, ss5/170 is a turbosparc; the hypersparc is an entirely different > beast, and it's not in a sparcstation 5 ever. And after a moment of thought, I feel even dumber now that usual, having read sparc 5 and thought sparc 20. See why you should always leave the stress of work at work? ;-) -dave
Re: stability on a sparcstation 5 170mhz
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Dave Paton wrote: > On 2/10/03 at 3:23 PM, Peter Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 10 Feb 2003, andy bezella wrote: > > > > > The box isn't going to be stable without a lot of involved kernel work > > that nobody quite understands, and nobody really has time to do. You're > > pretty much 100% screwed. > > So I guess a guy like me with one of the freak dual hypersparc 170s is up the > creek without a boat? No, ss5/170 is a turbosparc; the hypersparc is an entirely different beast, and it's not in a sparcstation 5 ever. We're *only* talking about the sparcstation 5/170, not any other ss5 and not any other 170MHz cpu. Just TurboSPARC. -- Peter What we need is either less corruption, or more chances to participate in it.
Re: stability on a sparcstation 5 170mhz
On 2/10/03 at 3:23 PM, Peter Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10 Feb 2003, andy bezella wrote: > The box isn't going to be stable without a lot of involved kernel work > that nobody quite understands, and nobody really has time to do. You're > pretty much 100% screwed. So I guess a guy like me with one of the freak dual hypersparc 170s is up the creek without a boat? Guess that Ultra-1 really is in my future... -dave
Re: stability on a sparcstation 5 170mhz
On 10 Feb 2003, andy bezella wrote: > i've got debian woody running with a 2.4.20 kernel on a 170mhz > sparcstation 5, which, as i understand from ultralinux.org 'is not very > stable.' and i have to agree... i'm experiencing sshd and imapd > crashes, and the system itself won't stay up for more than a week > straight. but beggars can't be choosers, and so my question is if > anyone has any tips or tricks for increasing stability on this box. > i've been using the debian kernel-source 2.4.20-5, but am about to try > the deb from http://osinvestor.com/sparc/debs; which is preferred? > > tia for any help... The box isn't going to be stable without a lot of involved kernel work that nobody quite understands, and nobody really has time to do. You're pretty much 100% screwed. -- Peter What we need is either less corruption, or more chances to participate in it.
stability on a sparcstation 5 170mhz
i've got debian woody running with a 2.4.20 kernel on a 170mhz sparcstation 5, which, as i understand from ultralinux.org 'is not very stable.' and i have to agree... i'm experiencing sshd and imapd crashes, and the system itself won't stay up for more than a week straight. but beggars can't be choosers, and so my question is if anyone has any tips or tricks for increasing stability on this box. i've been using the debian kernel-source 2.4.20-5, but am about to try the deb from http://osinvestor.com/sparc/debs; which is preferred? tia for any help... andy -- andy bezella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> navitaire, inc.
