Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.cis.okstate.edu!newsfeed.ksu.ksu.edu!news.mid.net!mr.net!news.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!news.mathworks.com!hunter.premier.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.serv.net!news.serv.net!michaelv From: michaelv@MindBender.serv.net (Michael L. VanLoon) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc Subject: Re: VM_FALTs with AMD486 and VIA chip set. Date: 27 Aug 1996 05:12:57 GMT Organization: Michael L. VanLoon Lines: 45 Message-ID: <MICHAELV.96Aug26221257@MindBender.serv.net> References: <markus-2608960833010001@evt-pm0-ip3.halcyon.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: mindbender.serv.net In-reply-to: markus@halcyon.com's message of Mon, 26 Aug 1996 08:33:01 -0800 In article <markus-2608960833010001@evt-pm0-ip3.halcyon.com> markus@halcyon.com (Mark Hastings) writes: I have a number of systems running NetBSD 1.1, on a board from TriEMS. They use the AMD486DX4/100 with the write back cache. We are seeing spontaneous VM_FALTS. All boards seem to do it sooner or later. Some systems may crash frequently and others, one or twice a month. I wrote a simple script that runs about 40 instances of "find". This will crash almost any system within 1 to 5 minutes, but we can't seem to figure out if we have a hardware or software problem, or a combination of both. Anyone have any ideas what to check? It sounds to me like a hardware problem. It sounds like you have slightly flaky cache circuitry, which is further supported by the fact that you say all the boards, with the same chipsets, do the same thing. Have you tried with the cache in only write-thru mode, instead of write-back. To further convince yourself it isn't NetBSD, if that doesn't do it, try running with the cache disabled completely. BTW, these boards seem to run just fine with OS/2 or Windows. Which Windows. Windows 3.1? 95? NT? FWIW, Windows 3.1 would be almost as worthless as DOS for finding hardware problems like this since it isn't really a protected-mode demand-paged pre-emptive multitasking OS. Windows 95 would be part way there, but it even has some compromises in its design -- I'd put it in the same category as OS/2. Windows NT I would expect to act more like NetBSD -- if there is a weak link in your hardware, it will exaggerate it. Doing what with OS/2? Did you write anything or find anything that would thrash the system as thoroughly as the multiple find script you ran on NetBSD? Merely saying they run fine just sitting there with a copy of Excel open doesn't say much. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Michael L. VanLoon michaelv@MindBender.serv.net --< Free your mind and your machine -- NetBSD free un*x >-- NetBSD working ports: 386+PC, Mac 68k, Amiga, Atari 68k, HP300, Sun3, Sun4/4c/4m, DEC MIPS, DEC Alpha, PC532, VAX, MVME68k, arm32... NetBSD ports in progress: PICA, others... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -