Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 07:34:13 -0400 From: stan <stanb@panix.com> To: Norberto Meijome <freebsd@meijome.net> Cc: Free BSD Questions list <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: 6.1 current instabilty on Sun Ultra 40's Message-ID: <20060831113413.GA19466@teddy.fas.com> In-Reply-To: <20060831144428.1956286a@localhost> References: <20060830220228.GB28263@teddy.fas.com> <20060831133935.4b649079@localhost> <20060831040107.GA6371@teddy.fas.com> <20060831144428.1956286a@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 02:44:28PM +1000, Norberto Meijome wrote: > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 00:01:07 -0400 > stan <stanb@panix.com> wrote: > > > On that disk is a world, built from last weekends cvsup. I was able > > to reproduce it's instability to build a generic kernel. It fails with > > a signal (I believe) 11, > > fair enough :) > > btw, from past experience, sig_fault 11 usually points to faulty hardware > (usually RAM...) - haven't found them much on BSD, but i'd get them all the > time when using lesser hardware on linux (building kernel was a standard way to > test the hardware back then).... but since you've ruled out hardware... i dont > know what else :) > I agree, that's one of the reasons it took me so long to decide to shut the production machine down to verify whether it _was_ hardware or not. I was extermely disapointed when I was able to reproduce the problem on known good hardware, as the unit i'm trying to put FreeBSD on is still under waranty. I don't really know how to go about creating a reproducable enough problem that is simple enough to submit a bug report, so I supose my only option is to find another use for this machine. too bad, beacuse I can easily buy yese machines, which isn't always the case in a corporate environment. -- Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity. (Dennis Ritchie)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060831113413.GA19466>