From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 2 07:47:32 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48D4216A4B3 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 07:47:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from avscan1.sentex.ca (avscan1.sentex.ca [199.212.134.11]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F00443F3F for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 07:47:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from lava.sentex.ca (pyroxene.sentex.ca [199.212.134.18]) by avscan1.sentex.ca (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h92ElUl7073809; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 10:47:30 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from simian.sentex.net (simeon.sentex.ca [192.168.43.27]) by lava.sentex.ca (8.12.9p1/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h92ElTdK092073; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 10:47:29 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.0.20031002104755.08f1b4c0@209.112.4.2> X-Sender: mdtpop@209.112.4.2 (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 10:50:45 -0400 To: Omar From: Mike Tancsa In-Reply-To: <20031002103015.A61087@westside.urbanblight.com> References: <3F7B30EF.4080306@kmjeuro.com> <6.0.0.22.0.20031001160628.06a2bd60@209.112.4.2> <20031002103015.A61087@westside.urbanblight.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by Sentex Communications (avscan1/20021227) cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: panics on 24 hour boundaries X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:47:32 -0000 Yes. The machine was and is well worked out so that with or without INET6 back then it would not have made a significant difference memory usage wise. Somehow I doubt that removing INET6 from the kernel would make a significant difference in how the box made use of RAM especially different enough to stop the machine from rebooting. ---Mike At 10:30 AM 02/10/2003, Omar wrote: >Have you replaced the memory? As FreeBSD uses more and more of >the RAM, maybe it's running into an issue where one of your >modules is faulty, and problem isn't exposed until there's sufficient >memory usage. > >Omar > >On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 04:09:58PM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote: > > At 03:59 PM 01/10/2003, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > > > >You can also try setting your clocks ahead (or back) and see > > >if the crashes move with the time change. > > > > Tried that and it didnt make a difference. Also, at the time, the box > > seemed to panic when periodic was running. BUT if I changed the daily > > scripts to run a few hours after boot time, it would not die. I could run > > daily to my hearts content manually, but no crash. (I also made sure than > > the disk cache would be flushed by running md5 on a 1 gig file a couple of > > time in case it was some combo disk / cache issue). In my case, removing > > INET6 from the kernel totally solved the problem. > > > > ---Mike