[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: woody: segfaulting all over the place

On 28 Aug 2001 18:08:42 +0200, Frank Preut wrote:
> hello friends,
> 	i recently did a fresh install of potato and immediately
> dist-upgraded to woody.. now, after playing around with it for a few
> days and installing the stuff i wanted i have this strange windows like
> problem: after i've been working on the computer (or after it has just
> been sitting around idle, even) some program might or might not give me
> a segfault and from then on i can't do anything anymore.. well, almost,
> at least, some apps might or might not work, i can't log on and when i
> get so far as to give the halt command init often says: switching to
> runlevel 0, sending the term signal, sending the kill signal, no more
> processes left in this runlevel and then nothing happens.. or i get Id
> "[number]" respawning too fast, disabled for five minutes.. gosh, i have
> absolutely no idea what this is all about, i upgraded to kernel
> 2.4.8-586 but iirc the strange behaviour started before that.. i
> installed a 3com 905c tx m recently (it has nothing to do so far, no
> network as of yet) but it happens even when i delete the driver and the
> card is not seen by the system..
> what i don't understand is why is almost any app segfaulting on me? i'm
> trying hard to get rid of windows and now my gnu/linux crashes in the
> same haphazard manner as the redmond shit.. is this all about init, is
> something perhaps hosed there? i would be really grateful for any help
> so that we could at least file a bug.. right now this would be against
> woody as a whole, i fear.. :-/
> here's the hardware config:
> pII 350 on an intel board (440bx chipset)
> nVidia riva 128 graphics (btw: x4 doesn't work in 800x600 anymore on
> that one), es1371 soundchip (all on board)
> wd ac26400b harddrive, teac 532ea cdrom
> as mentioned above 3com 905c nic

I'd check your memory with memtest86 to see if thats your problem.
Otherwise ... are you overclocking?


Reply to: