From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Feb 18 04:50:37 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id EAA01542
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 04:50:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dg-rtp.dg.com (dg-rtp.rtp.dg.com [128.222.1.2])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id EAA01537
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 04:50:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by dg-rtp.dg.com (5.4R3.10/dg-rtp-v02)
	id AA05045; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 07:50:03 -0500
Received: from ponds by dg-rtp.dg.com.rtp.dg.com; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 07:50 EST
Received: from lakes.water.net (lakes [10.0.0.3]) by ponds.water.net (8.8.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA00198; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 07:03:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from rivers@localhost) by lakes.water.net (8.8.3/8.6.9) id GAA25786; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 06:45:08 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 06:45:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Thomas David Rivers <ponds!rivers@dg-rtp.dg.com>
Message-Id: <199702181145.GAA25786@lakes.water.net>
To: ponds!rf900.physics.usyd.edu.au!dawes, ponds!freebsd.org!hackers
Subject: Re: dup alloc panic
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 
> >As Thomas David Rivers wrote:
> >
> >>  With that in mind; I can say that I've only machines that
> >> have experienced this problem are 386s.  I don't have the where-with-all
> >> to put together a 486/586 that I can trash in this manner.
> >> 
> >>  Also, this doesn't seem to jive with Joerg's similar problem when
> >> newfs's MFS file systems. [Joerg - was that even a 386 machine?]
> >
> >Yes, my scratch machine is a 386 one.  I can't remember i have
> >observed it somewhere else.
> 
> I'm coming in on this thread a bit late, I hope the subject line is
> still valid.  I've had a dup alloc panic recently, with a RELENG_2_2
> kernel dating from a couple of weeks ago (Pentium, SCSI disk on an NCR
> controller).  It happened while re-populating a disk after doing a newfs.
> I ended up doing the newfs again (fsck had too much trouble), and
> repopulating (but in a different order).  It's been OK since.
> 
> David
> 

 Yes - that fits with the problem I'm trying to debug...

 However, it is an interesting data point; since this was on a Pentium.

 This problem has been around for quite some time, [I know I'm probably
 beginning to sound like a real whiner :-) ]

 I, just this second; experienced it again on my news server... it's most
aggravating.

	- Dave Rivers -