From z_smurf at home.se  Thu Feb  3 00:07:37 2005
From: z_smurf at home.se (Andreas)
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 01:07:37 +0100
Subject: State of the TUX - query 
Message-ID: <001f01c50984$5eb06a00$350aa8c0@shuttle>

Hi all!
I've tried TUX in 1993, and the performance was good, but stability terrible.
I am just about to give it a try again, and just run into a kernel-panic when I did a 

service tux stop

Please reply and tell us how you are running tux, or how you used to run it.
Alone, or with an apache at port 8080?
Tux 2 or 3? 
Kernel 2.4 or 2.6? 

Cheers, Andreas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/tux-list/attachments/20050203/6e2c0ff9/attachment.htm>

From mcd at daviesinc.com  Thu Feb  3 02:10:51 2005
From: mcd at daviesinc.com (Chris Davies)
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 21:10:51 -0500
Subject: State of the TUX - query
In-Reply-To: <001f01c50984$5eb06a00$350aa8c0@shuttle>
References: <001f01c50984$5eb06a00$350aa8c0@shuttle>
Message-ID: <1107396651.3644.79.camel@tsavo>

we run Tux3 on 2.4 & 2.6 on several production servers.  Typically we
run apache as the backend on port 81, but we have run it in front of
other servers.

We've modified tux slightly to handle particular issues we've run into
that are pretty specific to our operation, have written Tux modules to
handle specific tasks.

In short, we've not had too many issues that haven't been resolved
quickly when posted to the list.

On Thu, 2005-02-03 at 01:07 +0100, Andreas wrote:
> Alone, or with an apache at port 8080?
> Tux 2 or 3? 
> Kernel 2.4 or 2.6? 
>  
> Cheers, Andreas
> !DSPAM:42016b4398821038121223! 
> _______________________________________________
> tux-list mailing list
> tux-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/tux-list
> 
> !DSPAM:42016b4398821038121223!



From williama_lovaton at coomeva.com.co  Thu Feb  3 12:51:26 2005
From: williama_lovaton at coomeva.com.co (William Lovaton)
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 07:51:26 -0500
Subject: State of the TUX - query
In-Reply-To: <001f01c50984$5eb06a00$350aa8c0@shuttle>
References: <001f01c50984$5eb06a00$350aa8c0@shuttle>
Message-ID: <1107435086.7309.48.camel@nalwalovaton>

Hi Andreas,

I ran tux with RH9 (kernel 2.4) and it was rock solid, not a single
crash on my overloaded system.  It managed to get more than 80 days of
uptime before shutting down for maintenance purposes.

Now I use FC2/3 with kernel 2.6 and it have been blocking on me under
heavy load.  I am working with Ingo to try to solve this but I have been
unable to test the latest kernel for different reasons.

Tux is really really great.  Could you test RH9 or FC1 and see if it is
stable enough?  (FC1 uses a 2.4 kernel so it should be stable).


-William


El jue, 03-02-2005 a las 01:07 +0100, Andreas escribi?:
> Hi all!
> I've tried TUX in 1993, and the performance was good, but stability
> terrible.
> I am just about to give it a try again, and just run into a kernel-
> panic when I did a 
>  
> service tux stop
>  
> Please reply and tell us how you are running tux, or how you used to
> run it.
> Alone, or with an apache at port 8080?
> Tux 2 or 3? 
> Kernel 2.4 or 2.6? 
>  
> Cheers, Andreas
> _______________________________________________
> tux-list mailing list
> tux-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/tux-list



From joe at tmsusa.com  Thu Feb  3 16:43:31 2005
From: joe at tmsusa.com (joe)
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 08:43:31 -0800
Subject: State of the TUX - query
In-Reply-To: <001f01c50984$5eb06a00$350aa8c0@shuttle>
References: <001f01c50984$5eb06a00$350aa8c0@shuttle>
Message-ID: <420254B3.3090800@tmsusa.com>

Andreas wrote:

> Hi all!
> I've tried TUX in 1993, and the performance was good, but stability 
> terrible.

Surely you are mistaken. tux was not written until about 1999...

Joe