Linux: freezes are "incredibly frustrating" - Linux

This is a discussion on Linux: freezes are "incredibly frustrating" - Linux ; "I've been getting complete system freeze with Feisty but only for about a week. I've had two today and it's incredibly frustrating." #128 at http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=412125&page=13...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Linux: freezes are "incredibly frustrating"

  1. Linux: freezes are "incredibly frustrating"

    "I've been getting complete system freeze with Feisty but only for about a
    week. I've had two today and it's incredibly frustrating."

    #128 at http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=412125&page=13




  2. Re: Linux: freezes are "incredibly frustrating"

    On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 00:56:45 -0400, DFS wrote:

    > "I've been getting complete system freeze with Feisty but only for about a
    > week. I've had two today and it's incredibly frustrating."
    >
    > #128 at http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=412125&page=13


    There seems to be a pattern here with Ubuntu freezing.
    How long has this been going on and why don't we hear about it from the
    COLA regulars who claim they are being honest about Linux.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  3. Re: Linux: freezes are "incredibly frustrating"

    Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    > On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 00:56:45 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >
    >> "I've been getting complete system freeze with Feisty but only for
    >> about a week. I've had two today and it's incredibly frustrating."
    >>
    >> #128 at http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=412125&page=13

    >
    > There seems to be a pattern here with Ubuntu freezing.
    > How long has this been going on and why don't we hear about it from
    > the COLA regulars who claim they are being honest about Linux.


    Going on for a year - but it's nothing to worry about since Linux doesn't
    freeze up on "advocates" systems.




  4. Re: Linux: freezes are "incredibly frustrating"

    On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 11:26:25 -0400, DFS wrote:

    > Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    >> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 00:56:45 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>
    >>> "I've been getting complete system freeze with Feisty but only for
    >>> about a week. I've had two today and it's incredibly frustrating."
    >>>
    >>> #128 at http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=412125&page=13

    >>
    >> There seems to be a pattern here with Ubuntu freezing. How long has
    >> this been going on and why don't we hear about it from the COLA
    >> regulars who claim they are being honest about Linux.

    >
    > Going on for a year - but it's nothing to worry about since Linux
    > doesn't freeze up on "advocates" systems.


    Gee, I supposed there are no freezes, or bugs, or viruses or Trojans or
    bad software in your Windows world.

    Here's a clue... stop trying to tell us that the systems that work for
    us... don't work for us.



    --
    Rick

  5. Re: Linux: freezes are "incredibly frustrating"

    "DFS" writes:

    > Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    >> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 00:56:45 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>
    >>> "I've been getting complete system freeze with Feisty but only for
    >>> about a week. I've had two today and it's incredibly frustrating."
    >>>
    >>> #128 at http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=412125&page=13

    >>
    >> There seems to be a pattern here with Ubuntu freezing.
    >> How long has this been going on and why don't we hear about it from
    >> the COLA regulars who claim they are being honest about Linux.

    >
    > Going on for a year - but it's nothing to worry about since Linux doesn't
    > freeze up on "advocates" systems.


    It gets better. In COLA everything works in 64 bit too AND uses less
    memory AND runs "noticeably faster". Elsewhere there are issues and
    everyone with a clue says that it hogs more memory and there is no
    noticeable speed increase - in many cases it runs slower. So the moral
    is : if you move to Linux and have issues then join COLA.

    It imbues other skills too like being blind to advertising and having
    all compiler modules removed from your degree course.

    --
    .... but hey, this is Linux, isn't it meant to do infinite loops in 5
    seconds?
    -- Jonathan Oxer in the apt-cacher ChangeLog

  6. Re: Linux: freezes are "incredibly frustrating"

    On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 11:03:27 -0500, Rick wrote:

    > On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 11:26:25 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >
    >> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 00:56:45 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "I've been getting complete system freeze with Feisty but only for
    >>>> about a week. I've had two today and it's incredibly frustrating."
    >>>>
    >>>> #128 at http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=412125&page=13
    >>>
    >>> There seems to be a pattern here with Ubuntu freezing. How long has
    >>> this been going on and why don't we hear about it from the COLA
    >>> regulars who claim they are being honest about Linux.

    >>
    >> Going on for a year - but it's nothing to worry about since Linux
    >> doesn't freeze up on "advocates" systems.

    >
    > Gee, I supposed there are no freezes, or bugs, or viruses or Trojans or
    > bad software in your Windows world.
    >
    > Here's a clue... stop trying to tell us that the systems that work for
    > us... don't work for us.


    There is a tendency - on both sides, to a degree, but moreso on the part
    of the Wintrolls - to think that if the alternative isn't perfect, then
    it isn't viable. That is, if _both_ systems crash, or have security
    bugs, then it follows the other system isn't acceptable. Why this is
    true isn't clear, as all it means is that _both_ systems fall short of
    perfection, something all but the most dense know going in.

    The issue, for me at least, is not whether both systems crash, or have
    bugs, etc, etc, etc. Rather, for me - in terms relevant to this topic -
    the issues are twofold. First, the relative frequency of such issues and
    second, what one can do about them.

    Now let's be honest here; over the years, the stability of Windows has
    improved, considerably. Unless one is pushing the envelope somewhat, any
    half-decently maintained XP machine should stay up more or less forever,
    just as with a half-decently maintained Linux box.

    That said, there is one key difference in their ability to stay up:
    Windows updates have a distressing habit of requiring (or at least
    requesting) reboots, whereas rebooting a Linux box for anything short of
    an actual kernel upgrade is rare. On an XP machine, this may not matter
    so much, but on a server, rebooting for anything other than the most
    critical, system-wide upgrades - eg a new kernel - is simply
    unacceptable. Windows has made strides over the years to reduce the
    number of pointless reboots, but it still has a ways to go.

    It is the other issue, however, I find more problematic, that of
    determining what to do about crashes.

    For example, the typical log entry in our Windows server to indicate that
    an unexpected restart has occurred reads something like "Unexpected
    restart occurred".

    Yes, well, that's all very nice and all, but it tells me absolutely
    nothing useful in terms of *why* the restart occurred.

    Here's an example - I quote from the event log:

    "The previous system shutdown at 3:56:51 PM on 4/7/2008 was unexpected."

    Prior to this, there are two errors recorded. One, at 2:29, says that
    the master browser received a notification that another machine thinks it
    is the master browser. However, since this was a good half hour earlier,
    there's little reason to suspect this was the cause. The next-prior
    error occurred five days earlier.

    Based on the event log, then, we may conclude that there was _no_ error
    condition in any part of the system anywhere, and that the machine
    rebooted for no reason whatsoever.

    Power outage? Let's check another machine in the same room. Nope, no
    restart anywhere near the same time frame.

    So why did the one machine restart? Who knows? The event logging tells
    me that it *did* restart, but gives absolutely no indication of
    *anything* actually going wrong with the machine - meaning it gives
    absolutely *no* indication what might be going wrong, what might need
    fixing.

    *This* I have issues with. If there's something so badly wrong it causes
    a restart, should there not be *some* indication of what's going wrong?
    Should there not be, oh, error messages about a failing disk? Or about a
    service not responding? A failure to connect to a critical resource?

    Surely there should be *some* indication - but there isn't. So which
    service, which device, does one examine to determine if it needs fixing
    or replacing? Apparently the proper response here is "guesswork", given
    the logging provided.

    If two machines each crash once a week, which one would I choose? I'd
    choose the one which actually recorded enough information, in general at
    least, to suggest *why* it was crashing - this would give me a fighting
    chance to fix the problem.

    Can one set up Windows to do useful logging? Perhaps. and almost
    certainly with some add-on products. However, Linux systems _default_ to
    useful logging in most cases, and in virtually all cases allow one to
    specify the level of logging on each service individually, usually from
    critical messages only to full-out debug logging. As an admin, such
    things make my life vastly easier when diagnosing problems, even problems
    which do not result in crashes.

    So yeah, fine, Linux crashes sometimes. It's rare - I haven't had an
    actual Linux system crash on me in ages - but it is not perfect; the
    potential is there. Windows also crashes sometimes. One of the two,
    however, is vastly more helpful in trying to sort out *why* it crashed.
    Here's a hint: it ain't the one with the "unexpected restart" message and
    nothing leading up to it.


  7. Re: Linux: freezes are "incredibly frustrating"

    Hadron wrote:
    > "DFS" writes:
    >
    >> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 00:56:45 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "I've been getting complete system freeze with Feisty but only for
    >>>> about a week. I've had two today and it's incredibly frustrating."
    >>>>
    >>>> #128 at http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=412125&page=13
    >>>
    >>> There seems to be a pattern here with Ubuntu freezing.
    >>> How long has this been going on and why don't we hear about it from
    >>> the COLA regulars who claim they are being honest about Linux.

    >>
    >> Going on for a year - but it's nothing to worry about since Linux
    >> doesn't freeze up on "advocates" systems.

    >
    > It gets better. In COLA everything works in 64 bit too AND uses less
    > memory AND runs "noticeably faster". Elsewhere there are issues and
    > everyone with a clue says that it hogs more memory and there is no
    > noticeable speed increase - in many cases it runs slower. So the moral
    > is : if you move to Linux and have issues then join COLA.
    >
    > It imbues other skills too like being blind to advertising and having
    > all compiler modules removed from your degree course.


    heh! It's a miracle newsgroup!





  8. Re: Linux: freezes are "incredibly frustrating"

    Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

    > So yeah, fine, Linux crashes sometimes. It's rare


    It's far from rare for Linux to lockup completely and become useless (even
    if it didn't crash).



    - I haven't had an
    > actual Linux system crash on me in ages - but it is not perfect; the
    > potential is there. Windows also crashes sometimes. One of the two,
    > however, is vastly more helpful in trying to sort out *why* it
    > crashed. Here's a hint: it ain't the one with the "unexpected
    > restart" message and nothing leading up to it.


    Can't fool us, don't fool yourself:

    "For the last few days I have been experiencing Fedora 8 lock ups. Once or
    twice per day. Everything freezes except the mouse pointer which jumps
    around the screen erratically as you move the mouse. Keyboard is also frozen
    and I notice a lot of continuous hard drive activity when this problem
    occurs. Appears like something is going into a tight loop. It does not seem
    to be related to a specific application. It happens in both KDE and Gnome. I
    just updated my kernel to 2.6..9-85, but I'm pretty sure this was happening
    on 2.6.23.8-63. The CPU is a Core 2 Duo. This only way out of this problem
    is a hard reset. I checked the "messages" and 'dmesg" logs for any
    suspicious messages, but saw none."

    http://forums.fedoraforum.org/forum/...hlight=freezes




+ Reply to Thread