Andy Arvai wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm having IO-APIC errors with 2.4.4. I spent some time searching the
> web to understand more about this problem and I'm still not sure if
> it is a hardware problem on the motherboard or a problem with the
> kernel. I will try the noapic boot option, but are there
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 11:22:24AM +0200, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
> Karsten Keil wrote:
> >
> > I have here the same board with 2*233 MMX and don't see this kind of ISDN
> > error on recent 2.2 kernels, but got also lot of APIC errors with the
> > 2.3/2.4, because the APIC errors are only repo
On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 03:07:22PM +0200, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
> Hi,
> I am using for my Internet-Gateway a dual Pentium MMX 200Mhz with a
> Gigabyte 586DX Motherboard (with the Intel 430HX Chipset). The last year
> I used Linux-2.2.16,2.2.17 with it and had several hangs of the network
> an
Chris Wedgwood wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 09:27:12PM -0500, Rico Tudor wrote:
>
> Another problem area is ECC monitoring. I'm still waiting for
> info from ServerWorks, and so is Dan Hollis. Alexander Stohr has
> even submitted code to Jim Foster for approval, without evide
Another problem area is ECC monitoring. I'm still waiting for info from
ServerWorks, and so is Dan Hollis. Alexander Stohr has even submitted
code to Jim Foster for approval, without evident effect. I have 18GB of
RAM divided among five ServerWorks boxes, so the matter is not academic.
-
To uns
On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 03:21:17PM -0700, Dr. Kelsey Hudson wrote:
> Um... Looks like when you clock the BX-chipset out of spec (>100MHz FSB)
> you get the error. Since BX wasn't ever designed to be run at >100MHz
> these errors are *expected*.
No, the APIC errors also occur at exactly 100MHz.
Un
> Er... I believe there was some discussion on l-k some while ago regarding a
> certain lack of forthcomingness by Serverworks and the resultant general
> flakiness of Linux support for their chipsets...
Serverworks stuff is pretty well supported now - they've been working to make
some stuff avai
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
"Dr. Kelsey Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
*snip*
> You have a couple solutions: Upgrade the motherboard to one of the VIA
> 133MHz chipsets (I dont care for the VIA chipset so this really doesn't
> strike my fancy) or upgrade to that other Intel chip
Um... Looks like when you clock the BX-chipset out of spec (>100MHz FSB)
you get the error. Since BX wasn't ever designed to be run at >100MHz
these errors are *expected*.
You have a couple solutions: Upgrade the motherboard to one of the VIA
133MHz chipsets (I dont care for the VIA chipset so th
OK, talked with someone who knows a little more about this than i do.
According to him, one reason I may be getting these errors is due to the
fact that the HPT370 controller is using IRQ18 which falls in the APIC
extended IRQ range (16 - 31).
If this is a problem is there a work-around? I don't
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Jorge Nerin wrote:
> > It's the first report of APIC errors on a P5 system I have seen, so it's
> > probably not a result of a bad motherboard design. I'd recommend to check
> > if the system doesn't get overheated. You may also be unlucky to have a
> > faulty board.
>
>
"Maciej W. Rozycki" escribió:
>
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Dominik Kubla wrote:
>
> > Just switched to 2.4.0-ac9 (+crypto patches) on our Dual-Pentium MMX
> > webserver yesterday. Works fine so far, except i keep seeing those
> > APIC erros (about 14 in 12 hrs) indicating receive, send and CS error
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Dominik Kubla wrote:
> Just switched to 2.4.0-ac9 (+crypto patches) on our Dual-Pentium MMX
> webserver yesterday. Works fine so far, except i keep seeing those
> APIC erros (about 14 in 12 hrs) indicating receive, send and CS errors.
Make sure your system is free of dust..
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Dominik Kubla wrote:
> Just switched to 2.4.0-ac9 (+crypto patches) on our Dual-Pentium MMX
> webserver yesterday. Works fine so far, except i keep seeing those
> APIC erros (about 14 in 12 hrs) indicating receive, send and CS errors.
>
> Should i be concerned?
At this vo
Rogier Wolff wrote:
>
> > I have seen the same problem on the same motherboard. It appears to
> > be a motherboard bug that 2.4 exposes and 2.2 doesn't.
>
> This PRINT was added in 2.4.
>
> You're seeing noise on the apic lines. The APICs notice, but every now
> and then you may see a lockup d
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> By author:Bernhard Rosenkraenzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> >
> > Hi,
> > after booting a 2.4.0 (any testx-release I've tried so far, including
> > test11-pre2) on a Dual-Pentium III box, the system works o
Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author:Bernhard Rosenkraenzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> Hi,
> after booting a 2.4.0 (any testx-release I've tried so far, including
> test11-pre2) on a Dual-Pentium III box, the system works ok, but the
> console gets filled wit
Seth R Arnold wrote:
[...]
> APIC error on CPU1: 02(02)
> APIC error on CPU1: 02(08)
[...]
> Is this something I should be worried about?
No. The APIC retries the stuff that go wrong, so all
you get is a very slight performance degradation.
Nothing to worry about unless it happens hundreds of
tim
18 matches
Mail list logo
