Verily I say unto thee, that Randy Vice spake thusly: > Since yesterday, my FC6 with all the updates has been very unstable with > the current kernel (and it's patches via yum). It's a bit more stable > using the original kernel (plus all the patches), but it's not perfect. Well I'm fully up2date here too, and 100% rock solid. And that's on an AMD64 system with a mix of 64 and 32 bit libraries, packages from 25 different repos, fglrx (ATI) proprietary drivers, half a dozen commercial Linux games, Cedga running half a dozen commercial Windows games, proprietary software such as VMWare running Windows XP, and my own collection of custom built packages. If there was a b0rk vector in there somewhere, pure statistics would suggest I'd have hit it. > Machine runs stable under XP in harsh gaming environment so I don't > think ti's the hardware. Suggestions on which log I need to tail? /var/log/messages would be a good start. Given that you say downgrading the kernel doesn't help, it's unlikely to be a driver issue (if, as you say, all was stable before). Are you running anything weird on the system? Oh, and like Ed already said ... define "unstable" -- K. http://slated.org .---- | "Future archaeologists will be able to identify a 'Vista Upgrade | Layer' when they go through our landfill sites" - Sian Berry, the | Green Party. `---- Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux) on sky, running kernel 2.6.20-1.2300.fc5 09:12:30 up 7 days, 7:26, 3 users, load average: 0.46, 0.61, 0.50 -- K. http://slated.org .---- | "Future archaeologists will be able to identify a 'Vista Upgrade | Layer' when they go through our landfill sites" - Sian Berry, the | Green Party. `---- Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux) on sky, running kernel 2.6.20-1.2300.fc5 09:25:30 up 7 days, 7:39, 3 users, load average: 0.52, 0.49, 0.46
