Kernel 2.6.16 Problems FC4 and FC5

[S.W. Bobcat]

Sean, thank you for your post.. Enclosed are the aswers to the questions you 
raised.


>On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 23:16 +0000, S.W. Bobcat wrote:
> > I qam posting this in hopes that some developer might see this. I agree 
>with
> > the idea that we need a time out to fix bugs.
> >
> > First a note on my system ( as this data may be needed ): CPU: Opteron 
>144;
> > Mobo:  ASUS, SK8V; RAM: 512 MB Reg ECC; Video Card: Nvidia 6600 GT w/ 
>128 MB
> > DDR3 VRAM;  120 GiB Maxtor SATA Harddrive; DVD RW; CD RW; CD Read Only; 
>Zip
> > Drive; 3.5 " Floppy Drive; OS (for the time being, Fedora Core 4
> > w/2.6.15-1.1833 x86_64 Kernel.

>I've been running FC5 2.6.16-1.2122_FC5 on my Dual Opteron ASUS K8N-DL
>with 6GB Ram and a Nvidia 6200 PCI-E card without much in the way of
>issues...maybe I'm just lucky?  :)

Or maybe the apps you are using have no internal problems with the 2.6.26 
kernel

> > PROBLEM #1: Like Many people I was looking forward to the release of 
>FC5.
> > When the chance came I was an early adopter. When I installed FC5 I was
> > greeted with a message to the effect that my Home directory setup would 
>not
> > be saved and that I needed to make sure that my home directory was set 
>to
> > 644 (or maybe 664 -- can't remember ) permissions. After hacking away 
>with a
> > buddy of mine we figured out how to set it. Regular attempts using chmod 
>did
> > not work [ I think we had to do it from root @~ then had to use chmod -R 
>644
> > /home/rhr ].
> >

>Perchance was this an upgrade of FC4?

1. At first this was an attempt to migrate from FC4 -> FC5 The first 2-3 
attempts were *total Install*, sans /home which was left unchanged: New /, 
new /tmp, new /var. /home, and /backup were left unchanged. It was after  
these failed attempts at the install, that I then decided to try to *update* 
FC4 -> FC5  rather than do an *install* of FC5.

> > Problem #2: Once I had that problem solved. I tried to start up Star 
>Office
> > 6.0, located in my home directory as well as set up in 
>/usr/local/office60.
> > Regardless of what I tried Star Office 6.0 would not start or could it 
>be
> > installed. Additionally I had problems with Open Office 2.0 ( which 
>crashed
> > with regularity, sometimes taking the whole system with it. Which 
>explaines
> > why I use Star Office 6.0). I also had troubles with VMware's VMplayer
> > (Could not get it to work.), as well as NVIDIA drivers ( Could not get 
>it to
> > work ). I gave up on of FC5 and did a restore of my FC4 w/kernel
> > 2.6.15-1.1833.

>Been running the NVIDIA drivers from livna.org since the release came
>out.  Not sure what the problems you had were, but there were some
>issues with the NVIDIA installer that the fine folks at livna had
>'worked around' in their packages.

2. Well that explains one thing: I downloaded, (as always) my drivers 
directly from NVIDIA. Wonder if that might have been the problem there?

> > Problem #3: After a few weeks when I was sure things had been "fixed" in
> > FC5, I did another re-install of FC5. This time I had all the same 
>problems
> > as above but this time Open Office would not even start let alone start 
>then
> > crash. Once again I did a total restore of FC4 w kernel 2.6.15-1.1833.
> >
> > Problem #4: One week later I was sure the the problem was that some of 
>my
> > links were being broken when I tried to "install" FC5. To avoid this 
>problem
> > I decided to an "update" to FC5 in hopes that all my links would remain 
>and
> > that I could circumvent the problems associated with a FC5 installtion. 
>The
> > answer: I had all the same problems as with the regular install but not 
>i
> > got a message that mc [Midnight Commander] would not start due to 
>problems
> > with shared libaries. Once again, I did a restore of FC4 w kernel
> > 2.6.15-1.1833. I reached the conclusion that FC5 is UNSTABLE.

>I almost sounds like you are installing on a second disk or something.
>When you reference 'links' it seems that the applications, like
>StarOffice, exist prior to the install.  Is this the case?

3. No second disk . When I wrote "link", I was thinking (rightly or wrongly 
) of links to libaries that the app (Star Office 6.0, Open Office 2.0, 
VMware/VMplayer, etc ) may need to link to in order to run. When I *updated* 
to  FC5 from FC4 we are told all data on the various particians will be 
saved, I had some hope that *if* any links to various apps existed, (Star 
Office 6.0, Open Office 2.0, VMware/VMplayer, etc.) would also be preserved. 
  That did not seem to be the case.

4. The xorg-x11 *update* had been done at least twice and I still had the 
problem, at least with Star Office 6.0, and the other stuff???? hard to 
know.  But the problems I am having seem to predate the xorg-x11 updates and 
were still there after the updates.


> > Problem #5: Once I gave up on FC5 I decided to upgrade FC4. I 
>downloadedall
> > the updates since April 20th, and ran yum -y update. That included the
> > latest and greatest kernels of 2.6.16-1.2069 [3/29/06]. and -1.2096
> > [4/20/06] For reasons unknown after my last update niether kernal got
> > installed but both are listed in my updates. After 4/20/06 we have
> > 2.6.16-1.2107 [5/306], -1.2108 [5/5/06], and -1.2111 [5/21/06] . 
>Everything
> > went smoothly. I then went to edit a .html file and I could not; I then
> > tried to do something with Star Office 6.0. Which was not respondind, so 
>I
> > killed it and then tried to restart the program but I could not, ala 
>FC5. I
> > did a complete restore (again)  of FC4 w/ kernel 2.6.15-1.1833, and once
> > again everything was fine. By this time I started to think that there is
> > something very, very wrong with something, and that something had to 
>with
> > something in the updates which are common to both FC4 and FC5. I then 
>did a
> > search to see what was new in the updates in FC4, which might be causing 
>me
> > such grief. I found that, since my previous update that there were two
> > possible sources for my problems: xorg-x11 was updated on 5/2.06; and 
>the
> > kernels -1.2107 [5/3/06], -1.2108 [5/5/06], and -1.2111 [5/21/06].
> >
> > My buddy reported that when in installed kernel 2.6.16-1.2069 (x86_64) 
>some
> > of his important apps stop working including NVIDIA, and VMware. To 
>avoid
> > any possible risks that might be found, in the .2069 kernel, I installed
> > [rpm -ivh... .rpm] the -1.2096 kernel. This way I could avoid the update
> > problem that might be associated with kernels .2107, .2108, and .2111 
>which
> > were after the release of the xorg-x11 updates but preceeded the
> > xorg-x11updates.

>I've discovered that I needed to install xorg-x11-server-sdk in order to
>get the Nvidia drivers to work properly, if installed from the Nvidia
>installer.  I had to play some games with TransGaming's software to
>figure this out.  But, none-the-less, I use the Livna RPM's without any
>issues.

I am debating withmyself about updating *ONLY* xorg-x11 files. I'm not 
looking forward to yet another restore if it should cause problems.

> > After I did the install of the 2.6.16-1.2096 x86_64 kernal (remember I 
>have
> > an Opteron system, and run everything if I can in x86_64  mode) I then 
>shut
> > down and rebooted the new kernel. Once up I tried to run Star Office 6.0 
>and
> > I could not get it run  or install. I then shut down and rebooted my 
>system
> > with the 2.5.15-1.1833 x86_64 kernel and once up tried to start Star 
>Office
> > 6.0  and it started up just fine.
>It  would be interesting if you could run 'soffice.bin' or whatever the
>Star Office executable is from a shell and post the output.  It might
>lead you to what changed.
> >
> > CONCLUSION: There is something very, very messed up with the 2.6.16 
>series
> > of kernels. Star Office 6.0 has been very easy to install and start up 
>till
> > 2.6.16; that other apps including NVIDIA, and VMware  are also affected 
>( as
> > well as some more specific apps I do not use but my buddy does), 
>suggests
> > that something was changed within the 2.6.16 kernal which broke a lot of
> > links, which has lead to problems with various apps that predate the 
>2.6.16
> > series. Given that it has been suggested that we take a time out to fix
> > bugs, this is one kernal bug that needs to be fixed -- that or a 
>suggestion
> > on a workaround should be posted.
> >
> > The question now becomes is this a problem ONLY with the 2.6.16... 
>x86_64
> > series of kernals or does this problem affect ALL 2.6.16 kernals ( 32 
>and 64
> > bit ).

>I haven't seen the exact issues that you are referencing, but there is
>some lag from the commerical vendors right now ... You may want to ask
>VMWare why the latest kernel causes issues.

5. This does not seem to be a single app on a single machine ( my buddy has 
duel Opteron system that he uses everyday to do millions of things including 
statistics, he he has simular problems that seem to be linked back to the 
2.6.16 kernel, but which he does not have with the 2.6.15 kernel.. Having 
narrowed the suspect to the kernel, and I have both 2.6.15-1.1833_FC4  
(which works) and the 2.6.16 -1.2096_FC4 (which does not work) kernals I can 
try to see if I can at least run the Star Office app and see if I can get an 
output. Doing another install is out of the question. By the time I've done 
a restore etc. I have lost almost 6-7 hours worth of time. The one question 
I do not know the answer to would be: Would I still have these problems if I 
could install Star Office 7 or the current version, Star Office 8.  The 
attendant question would be What would happen if I nuked all the affected 
apps (Star Office 6.0, etc) from the system, but left all the data files, 
and unaffected apps in place, then do seperate new re-installs of those 
apps. Tracking down *all* the apps linked files would be almost impossible, 
and might matters worse. The other way would be to totally nuke the system, 
and do a fresh install including a new home, and leave only /backup on the 
disk [I nuke that and then I'm really screwed!].

>I hope this was of some use to you.

Thank you for the info, it has been some help, and with luck we can narrow 
the search down even more.

Bob
>Sean