Re: HURD kernel change

[ddavies@ddavies.net]

"Ciaran O'Riordan" <ciaran@member.fsf.org> writes:
>   There's a moderate change right now from gnumach1.3 to
> gnumach2.0 (was called oskit-mach).  AFAIK, there are a
> few necessary bits of work left on gnumach2.0, the CDs
> contain gnumach1.3.  I don't know the timescale for the
> gnumach2.0 transition but the current CDs (snapshot K4)
> are supposedly very good (previous trivial problems ironned out)
> (I'm using K3 with no unexpected problems)

Well, since Ciaran has brought it up...

Is there really a plan to stablize GNUmach 2.0?  I would work on this
if others were interested in helping too, but I don't want to do it
alone.

At least on the hardware I'm using now there are just too many hard to
reproduce or just plain wacky bugs to try to fix them without being
able to ask if others experience the problems too.  I am going to try
a different machine to see what that's like, but I don't put too much
hope in that.

If anyone is still interested in this, I'd like to get an idea of how
stable 2.0 (1.9) is for you.  Mine has never stayed up more than a
couple of hours (at most and it was idle at that).  It just seems to
randomly reset and then the machine boots again.  This is under remote
debugging, without debugging it crashes during init server startup and
resets.

I have yet to hear of a real GNUMach 2.0 success story (like it stayed
up for a day or two under normal load).  If anyone has experienced
that I sure would like to hear about it (I'll zealously try another
machine if that's the case).

I don't know if we're even to the point of having some sort of list of
what we think the worst bugs are, but we would have to put something
like that together to know what we need to work on. I don't suggest we
need some formal process, but rather just a way for those who would
like to see a decent 2.0 to coordinate and share experiences.

Thanks,
Derek