From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 22 10:44:26 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C13AF733 for ; Sun, 22 Feb 2015 10:44:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.parts-unknown.org (mail.parts-unknown.org [50.250.218.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5931C88 for ; Sun, 22 Feb 2015 10:44:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.parts-unknown.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 900825B3BC39; Sun, 22 Feb 2015 02:44:25 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 02:44:25 -0800 From: David Benfell To: Polytropon Subject: Re: why would I get a segmentation fault on one system but not the other? Message-ID: <20150222104425.GA44573@home.parts-unknown.org> References: <20150221224006.GA5501@home.parts-unknown.org> <09da5ec0816e098badc49432c802dc18@sdf.org> <390c4c0547fc27e91d28872d29aa2e04@sdf.org> <20150222091956.fd1ec914.freebsd@edvax.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Kj7319i9nmIyA2yE" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150222091956.fd1ec914.freebsd@edvax.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: cpet , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 10:44:26 -0000 --Kj7319i9nmIyA2yE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 09:19:56AM +0100, Polytropon wrote: > On Sat, 21 Feb 2015 17:03:50 -0600, cpet wrote: > > As well as don't use stable on a production box as STABLE doesn't mean= =20 > > what it means. >=20 > STABLE means that the API/ABI is stable. Unlike HEAD (CURRENT), > STABLE still is actually _stable_ in most cases, so it's a valid > solution for production systems (given that you're prepared well, > and you know what you're doing). I'm running STABLE on few > production machines myself (where this is needed), but I usually > prefer (and often recommend) using RELEASE and add the security > patches when they are available. >=20 Thinking about this more, I'm inclined to think my problem is not with the base system. I haven't seen *any* crashes with stuff that can be clearly identified as being in the base system, let alone the kernel. My memory test has just completed a 4th pass with zero errors. It's now been running for 7.5 hours. I think my problem is somewhere in the ports. --=20 David Benfell See https://parts-unknown.org/node/2 if you don't understand the attachment. --Kj7319i9nmIyA2yE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJU6bMJAAoJEBV64x4SNmArJNoQAKFdVbopzBLMiyoGeRzUy/cb ty8K4Qlznf3d5DO9LRUXjwK+V5rlbfgkdQyFRl74sI82dM4ubwJI00aLCWd/r0PB 024Ll4lqiM/tKV5HAxrZxUncEf9TEYXILOKqImWo8vI79llqDy/exTXhQfZnh66P vkERyb+9AxrXtkrYMiXZX/6/vpzg/bQCwFt+qgNKYCRp9I6pi82msWEIKBGSJafm pQOAKQlp9oFuP4U6kSVqyG+dzrkTKkCF49u462POlg7kx/6pAo93xzuAb3N8y8Oj LGYs9esSDnYouMzVaHz5Er4ZpF/xQU2NziPl/4Mqpw0c+VGRcNMU+utOfGM3YRub WhuLAdPHUdC3mymkyIC/n5Y6VpCTiH9Mjd18u+n84IwLeDzb0ztke9HN8IQWOX67 stW5qdS4pun6KNsa9TgaMBICxHrOAywXRS2O9Q1GnWbjkhpe2b5uxmlqWZ1DPBuP j/Q1zQf0PkyL7bZvBuV5xp5OFaBtRWjRhbfSbxbxGos+iQ3Rz5pqrEyjL5IzCaEq jAsHBaJ/99mH44a1UCEbfmtyAgyT2aO0oi/zIGGU0Nqb0i0XvBj93unazyNKdsEz m+5ioF5hS92pUX88lyjUUbtHs3KodG95gkw3V/diBAEvCEMkJD7Qc4T5UL8b8VJB ibXPqZspAVIlQgWfjyXs =pe2W -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Kj7319i9nmIyA2yE--