Re: which version to consider "stable?"

[Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@stanford.edu>]

--On Wednesday, January 11, 2006 1:32 PM -0500 John Madden 
<jmadden@ivytech.edu> wrote:

> > 2.3.16/bdb has now run here for more than 24 hours without a failure, so
> > it's at the very least a whole lot better than 2.3.11 was.  (This is on
> > Linux 2.6, bdb 4.2, 100,000+ objects, ~4 million operations a day.)
>
> And just hours after sending this, slapd hung.  This behavior's different
> than what I had been seeing before: slapd hangs at 100% cpu usage,
> eventually refusing new clients.
>
> At loglevel 256, nothing of any use is revealed.  Is there some level I
> can safely turn on to help debug this problem?  Will the upgrade to
> 2.3.17 help?
>
> I'm using the default thread count and I noticed that at higher thread
> levels, this CPU situation would happen sometimes within a couple of
> hours.  Should I go even lower than 16, or is this another Linux-2.6
> issue where I should consider using 2.4 instead?

I believe the fix to 2.3.17 to use nanosleep on 2.6 was in part to address 
that.

--Quanah


--
Quanah Gibson-Mount
Principal Software Developer
ITSS/Shared Services
Stanford University
GnuPG Public Key: http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/pgp.html