2.4.19-ac4 ncpmount

2.4.19-ac4 ncpmount

[Peter]

When I mount a Novell Netware file server on 2.4.19-ac4, I can access it
with a file browser (konqueror, lynx), but ls gives "Stale NFS file
handle" and other bash commands such as find fail. 2.4.16 works fine.

Cheers,
Peter

#strace ls
open(".", O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK|O_LARGEFILE|O_DIRECTORY) = -1 ESTALE (Stale 
NFS file handle)
write(2, "ls: ", 4ls: )                     = 4
write(2, ".", 1.)                        = 1
write(2, ": Stale NFS file handle", 23: Stale NFS file handle) = 23
write(2, "\n", 1
)                       = 1
_exit(1)                                = ?

Re: 2.4.19-ac4 ncpmount

[Petr Vandrovec]

On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 10:46:31AM -0700, Peter wrote:
> 
> When I mount a Novell Netware file server on 2.4.19-ac4, I can access it
> with a file browser (konqueror, lynx), but ls gives "Stale NFS file
> handle" and other bash commands such as find fail. 2.4.16 works fine.
> 
> Cheers,
> Peter
> 
> #strace ls
> open(".", O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK|O_LARGEFILE|O_DIRECTORY) = -1 ESTALE (Stale 
> NFS file handle)

It should be fixed in latest 2.4.20-preX from Marcelo. VFS rules
for dentry's d_revalidate changed between 2.4.18 and 2.4.19, and I did not
notice that because of I use 2.5.x only.
							Petr Vandrovec
							vandrove@vc.cvut.cz

Re: Known 'issues' about 2.4.19...

[Peter]

Hi Paul,

You might want to try 2.4.19-ac4, the latest -ac revision to the stable
kernel. I've run this for a couple of months now with one single incident
-- on playing a lot of divx files with mplayer, the machine ran out of
memory and started swapping feverishly. The system froze for a minute and
then let up. Some mm issue. I'm running a DVD player and burner, a 160GB
drive on a x69 Promise card and mount external drives through NFS and
Samba, on ext3, Intel chipsets, firewire stuff -- as stable as 2.4.16 with
more features. I've been working with 20GB files with no problems. I
should say this is not my web and file server; that is still running
2.4.16, as it doesn't need the new features.

The most recent -ac kernels are likely fine too, but there appear to be
some residual ide and ide-scsi issues (could be minor) and Andre is off
fishing. 

Cheers,
Peter

Re: Known 'issues' about 2.4.19...

[DervishD]

    Hi Peter :)

> Hi Paul,

    Raúl ;))

> You might want to try 2.4.19-ac4, the latest -ac revision to the
> stable kernel.

    I was considering it instead of plain vanilla 2.4.19.

> The system froze for a minute and then let up. Some mm issue.

    Reproducible with plain 2.4.19?

> The most recent -ac kernels are likely fine too, but there appear
> to be some residual ide and ide-scsi issues (could be minor) and
> Andre is off fishing.

    Probably they will be solved in 2.4.20-acX when released :) Andre
deserves a vacation time ;)))

    Raúl

Re: Known 'issues' about 2.4.19...

[DervishD]

    Hi Joseph :)

> Personally the best stability I've had lately is with 2.4.17.

    Me not. Best stability I have with 2.4.18. 2.4.17 did something
with CD-recorder and the bus got stuck a couple of times. I suppose
that there is no great difference between 17 and 18.

> Also my dual CPU pIII box (ASUS CUV4X-DLS) freezes silently after 
> 1-3 days uptime running a redhat style (modular) 2.4.18+ kernel.  

    Ooops, this is worse :(((

    Thanks for your answer :))
    Raúl

Re: Known 'issues' about 2.4.19...

[Joseph N. Hall]

> [...] I recently found out its IDE
> subsystem doesn't get along too well with VIA chipsets (replaced my old
> mobo for a VT8233 based recently and probls started surfacing).

Personally the best stability I've had lately is with 2.4.17.

I was never able to get IDE working right on my KT333 based Soyo
Dragon Ultra Platinum under 2.4.19 or later.  Swapped it for
an iWill (ALi), but "I will" try the Soyo again later because 
it's a nicer board ...  I forget whether the problems went back
to 2.4.18 or not.

Also my dual CPU pIII box (ASUS CUV4X-DLS) freezes silently after 
1-3 days uptime running a redhat style (modular) 2.4.18+ kernel.  
I reverted to a mostly monolithic 2.4.17 and have > 1 week of uptime 
... I will see sometime if a newer monolithic kernel will fly.

  -joseph

Re: Known 'issues' about 2.4.19...

[DervishD]

> subsystem doesn't get along too well with VIA chipsets (replaced my
> old mobo for a VT8233 based recently and probls started surfacing).

    I have a VIA8363 (82C686B) AKA KT133/KM133, running perfectly
with 2.4.18 at the time. Will this be a problem with 2.4.19?

> Aside from this, I've been using it daily at home, for all sorts of
> things.

    Thanks for your answer, Andre :))

    Raúl

Re: Known 'issues' about 2.4.19...

[Andre Costa]

Hi Raúl,

I've been using 2.4.19 for a couple of months already. Generally
speaking, I've had no probls with it. I recently found out its IDE
subsystem doesn't get along too well with VIA chipsets (replaced my old
mobo for a VT8233 based recently and probls started surfacing).
Basically, I am unable to rip audio tracks from my cds
(/var/log/messages logs a lot of timeouts).

This is a real PITA, but kernel folks are already aware of it and and
it's going through major reimplementation on 2.5.x branch, AFAIK. Also,
I've seen increasing activity on VIA's Linux forums (this issue has
surfaced a couple of times there as well), so there's hope VIA might
start working closer to the Linux community.

Aside from this, I've been using it daily at home, for all sorts of
things.

HTH,

Andre

On Sun, 13 Oct 2002 20:40:52 +0200
DervishD <raul@pleyades.net> wrote:

>     Hi all :))
> 
>     Is there any known bug or other issues about 2.4.19 that prevents
> it from being used in a production machine? I mean, I don't worry if
> the sound is broken or things like those, I mean if the IDE driver
> does 'things' and the like ;))
> 
>     I'm thinking about going to 2.4.19 or the latest -ac for 2.4.20.
> 
>     Thanks a lot :)
>     Raúl
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


-- 
Andre Oliveira da Costa

Re: Known 'issues' about 2.4.19...

[Rob Landley]

On Sunday 13 October 2002 04:02 pm, DervishD wrote:
>     Hi Andreas :)
>
> > >    Is there any known bug or other issues about 2.4.19 that prevents
> >
> > Bonding is broken.
>
>     Do you refer to NIC bonding? Anyway, I don't know what 'bonding'
> is, just I've heard the word related to NIC O:)))

It lets you use two ethernet cards as a single interface, assuming the switch 
they're plugged into supports it.  Cheap way to get 200 mbps throughput, 
especially with a switch that only does gigabit on the uplink port.

See Documentation/networking/bonding.txt in the kernel tarball...

Rob

Re: Known 'issues' about 2.4.19...

[DervishD]

    Hi Andreas :)

> >    Is there any known bug or other issues about 2.4.19 that prevents
> Bonding is broken.

    Do you refer to NIC bonding? Anyway, I don't know what 'bonding'
is, just I've heard the word related to NIC O:)))

    Thanks Andreas :)

    Raúl

Re: Known 'issues' about 2.4.19...

[Andreas Steinmetz]

DervishD wrote:
>     Hi all :))
> 
>     Is there any known bug or other issues about 2.4.19 that prevents
Bonding is broken.
-- 
Andreas Steinmetz
D.O.M. Datenverarbeitung GmbH

Re: Known 'issues' about 2.4.19...

[jbradford]

> Is there any known bug or other issues about 2.4.19 that prevents
> it from being used in a production machine? I mean, I don't worry if
> the sound is broken or things like those, I mean if the IDE driver
> does 'things' and the like ;))

I used it for three months for desktop use without a single problem.
I only stopped when I moved over to the 2.5.x tree, once the IDE
problems had been fixed.

Known 'issues' about 2.4.19...

[DervishD]

    Hi all :))

    Is there any known bug or other issues about 2.4.19 that prevents
it from being used in a production machine? I mean, I don't worry if
the sound is broken or things like those, I mean if the IDE driver
does 'things' and the like ;))

    I'm thinking about going to 2.4.19 or the latest -ac for 2.4.20.

    Thanks a lot :)
    Raúl