From owner-freebsd-current  Mon Sep 11 19:10:09 1995
Return-Path: current-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id TAA16332
          for current-outgoing; Mon, 11 Sep 1995 19:10:09 -0700
Received: from ess.harris.com (su15a.ess.harris.com [130.41.1.251])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id TAA16326
          for <freebsd-current@freefall.cdrom.com>; Mon, 11 Sep 1995 19:10:05 -0700
Received: from borg.ess.harris.com (suw2k.ess.harris.com) by ess.harris.com (5.x/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA00628; Mon, 11 Sep 1995 22:09:59 -0400
Received: by borg.ess.harris.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA03373; Mon, 11 Sep 95 22:07:21 EDT
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 95 22:07:21 EDT
From: jleppek@suw2k.ess.harris.com (James Leppek)
Message-Id: <9509120207.AA03373@borg.ess.harris.com>
To: freebsd-current@freefall.FreeBSD.org, dyson@freefall.FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Progress so far on the Sig-11 problem
Sender: current-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

I have a 16meg 486 system and all I need to do is start X.
all xterms after initial startup die with sig 11
then after a few tries the xterms start to work but
xarchie keeps faulting sig 6. It may be that all X and X apps
will need to be rebuilt...ouch

I realize everyone using current is definitely at risk but I do not think
there is any question now that current is very broken.
Well, maybe this message/thread is enough since everyone supping
current should be reading this list :-)

It looks like the packaged version of xarchie (dated may 16) will always sig 6
for me. You may want to try it to see if it helps isolate things.
 

Jim Leppek

> From owner-freebsd-current@freefall.freebsd.org Mon Sep 11 18:40:32 1995
> Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 17:51:33 -0700
> From: John Dyson <dyson@freefall.freebsd.org>
> To: current@freebsd.org
> Subject: Progress so far on the Sig-11 problem
> Sender: current-owner@freebsd.org
> 
> 
> I am having problems reproducing the problem.  It takes quite-a-while to
> get it to happen, and only appears when I am running in less than 8MB.
> I have verified that the pre-zero code is not the culprit (but have done some
> minor cleanups.)  Another major change is that the original vnode_pager_haspage
> was not correct (on the *very* conservative side) on the estimate of the
> cluster size.  That problem was *fixed* with another bug being introduced.
> The bug has been fixed in -current, but I am not sure that the Sig-11
> problems were related.  I am still searching for it...
> 
> John
> dyson@freebsd.org
>