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

Re: My boss want to kill debian, please help !



George Alexandru Dragoi wrote:

> Here are several servers, most redhat, some freebsd 5.x, and some
> debian. Debian is used on 2 most powerfull servers, and put under
> network traffic stress. From time to time, these debian systems has a
> kernel panic, packet loss.

Stable (Woody), Testing (Sarge), or Unstable (Sid)?

> Last time one of the machines completly died, it stopped to work (it
> didn't say "kernel panic"). The machine is under huge stress because it is
> connected to a big swtching network via e1000 netcard (in 100 full duplex
> mode).  It has zebra + bgpd and also arpwatch. I use QoS on that machine,
> htb with about 1500 classes and 1500 filters (fw).

> The kernel is 2.4.28 stable.

Is this a "vanilla" kernel.org kernel, a 2.4.28 kernel compiled for Debian
Stable from somewhere, or something else?

> Another machine,  also debian, got into similar problems under 
> high load (kernel panic, or just system freeze).

Same kernel? Same amount of memory? Same hardware?

> Another machine, under even more load, is a redhat 9.0, some 2.4.26
> kernel, bgp, 4000 htb classes and no problem at all.

How does the hardware with this system compare with the Debian systems?

> My boss experimented problems with debian several times (he is 
> an old unix/linux user), and now he believe that only redhat is good.

> Does somebody knows what the problem may be with the machine with
> 2.4.28 and that crashed recently without a word?

Official RedHat kernel are usually heavily patched. You could try installing
the kernel source RPM on the RedHat system, then copying the source tree
and kernel config to a Debian system. Compile and install, then see if the
freezing/panics go away.

If the Debian systems are using a "vanilla" 2.4.28 kernel, you could also
try upgrading to 2.4.29, which was recently released.

You should also rule out flaky memory/hardware - memtest86 is good for this.

Adam



Reply to: