From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 13 01:54:16 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 755E416A4CE; Fri, 13 Aug 2004 01:54:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from carver.gumbysoft.com (carver.gumbysoft.com [66.220.23.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66FB843D39; Fri, 13 Aug 2004 01:54:16 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dwhite@gumbysoft.com) Received: by carver.gumbysoft.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 59E6C72DD8; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:54:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by carver.gumbysoft.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53DD572DD5; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:54:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:54:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug White To: Terrence Koeman In-Reply-To: <20040812000885.SM01804@manrikigusari> Message-ID: <20040812185013.T86599@carver.gumbysoft.com> References: <20040812000885.SM01804@manrikigusari> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org cc: 'John Baldwin' Subject: RE: Lock order reversal in 5.2-CURRENT X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 01:54:16 -0000 On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Terrence Koeman wrote: > I thought so too, because multiple weird errors usually point to the hardware. > > But I have three identical systems with the only difference being the contents > of the disks. The other two systems are running 4.10-STABLE with heavy load > without any problems. I swapped the disks (only the disks) with a working > system twice now and it locks up just the same. Lets see... whats the common factor there? :-) If the problem follows the disks... A whole group of machines having problems is not unheard of. Sometimes theres bad chip revs. We have a big stack of Opterons at work that hang on heavy network I/O while virtually identical boxes bought earlier in the year work fine with the same software. We're hashing it out with the vendor right now. > I think the chance of three systems having the same hardware problem is > really small, especially because 4.10-STABLE hasn't had a single problem > on those systems in the couple of months they run. > > Maybe 5.2-CURRENT has a specific problem with the hardware in the > systems? But it's not like it is exotic hardware, they are SuperMicro 1U > barebones with a Celeron 2600, 512MB of RAM and a FastTrak TX2000. I'm not saying it isn't a but, particularly where -current is concerned, but I don't think you've proved its _not_ hardware. -- Doug White | FreeBSD: The Power to Serve dwhite@gumbysoft.com | www.FreeBSD.org