Kernel 2.6.16 Problems FC4 and FC5

[Dan]

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.
>
> 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 ].
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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 ).
>
> Problem #6:
>
>
The original kernel shipped with FC5 was 2.6._15_-1.2054_FC5; did you 
try upgrading to that? Note non-GPL kernel modules such as nVidia don't 
build with this kernel cause of a bug.
-Dan