Welcome!
Important information
-- Spectre and Meltdown vulnerabilities
-- Change in MX sources

News
-- MX Linux on social media: here
-- Mepis support still here

Current releases
-- MX-17.1 Final release info here
-- antiX-17 release info here

New users
-- Please read this first, and don't forget to add system and hardware information to posts!
-- Here are the Forum Rules

Is MX-14.2 Crashable?

Message
Author
User avatar
anticapitalista
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 5668
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 10:40 am

Re: Is MX-14.2 Crashable?

#11 Post by anticapitalista » Sat Nov 22, 2014 4:11 pm

I was 'worried' that including wheezy-backports in the sources repo would lead to loss of stability, but apart from a few issues, it sems to be working out ok. (There are warnings over the net that backports should not be enabled by default)

MX-14 is a sort of controlled rolling-release in many ways. I wonder how it will fare once Jessie goes to stable.
anticapitalista
Reg. linux user #395339.

Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.

antiX-17 "Heather Heyer" - lean and mean.
https://antixlinux.com

User avatar
Stevo
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 15933
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:07 pm

Re: Is MX-14.2 Crashable?

#12 Post by Stevo » Sat Nov 22, 2014 4:27 pm

I see backports finally uploaded a working QT5 last night, so I can add some QT5 backports--stellarium, for example, is QT 5 only now (Qupzilla can build on either, I'm keeping it at QT 4)

I suppose you could easily crash MX by running something that eats all the memory. I've never had an unexpected crash, though.

User avatar
male
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 8:38 am

Re: Is MX-14.2 Crashable?

#13 Post by male » Sun Nov 23, 2014 4:56 am

anticapitalista wrote:(There are warnings over the net that backports should not be enabled by default)
That is what had previously also amazes me. MX has
Backports enabled. Unusual in stable.

Although MX unlike antiX really not tear me away!
Perhaps because of XFCE ... (which bores me) :lipsrsealed:
Male is the capital of the Maldives and its wonderful people.

User avatar
chrispop99
Forum Guide
Forum Guide
Posts: 2307
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:07 pm

Re: Is MX-14.2 Crashable?

#14 Post by chrispop99 » Sun Nov 23, 2014 5:12 am

male wrote:Perhaps because of XFCE ... (which bores me) :lipsrsealed:
Although not officially supported, there are plenty of users who have installed KDE instead.

There is a meta-package in the package installer, and some advice to get you started in the Help docs.

Chris
Test machines:
32-bit non-PAE - Thinkpad T41, 1.6GHz Pentium M, 1GB RAM.
32-bit PAE - DELL Latitude D610, 1.73GHz Pentium M, 2GB RAM.
64-bit - Lenovo T61, 2GHz Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM
64-bit - Gigabyte Z77P-D3, Intel i3-3220, GeForce 8400 GS, 4GB PC3-12800.

User avatar
Marinos
Forum Novice
Forum  Novice
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 1:44 am

Re: Is MX-14.2 Crashable?

#15 Post by Marinos » Sun Nov 23, 2014 7:04 am

@Eadwine Rose
> it is crashable if you try hard enough

My post: "...while using it in a **regular** manner?"
There's no doubt that if one tries hard enough even a real-time,
nuclear-reactor-controling OS can be crashed :-)


@Topher
> If I had constant crashes, I would have looked around
> for something more stable if I was sure my hardware was OK

I did try SolydX for a spell. It worked OK for about a week and then
it started to refuse to shut down. Two consecutive re-installations
came to the same end, so I gave up. I should add that I'm bound
to use Debian-based-only distros due to the driver for my multifunction
printer (it's a hacked version of the original driver that was available
in both, .deb and .rpm formats.) Speaking of which, I did try PeppermintOS
in the past as well, yet it would not work with my printer driver no matter what.
As I've mentioned, I'm running Linux on ancient equippment and, naturally,
I expected it to malfuction from time to time due to aging components .
Yet, thankfully, MX-14.2 keeps rolling trouble-free so far. Perhaps I should
keep my fingers crossed :-)

@timkb4cq
> The old drive had failed, damaging the substantially modified
> MEPIS install

Personally, I follow a weekly backup routine of my Linux partition
(~ 12Gb used), using Clonezilla, just in case. Actually I do not even boot
the Clonezilla CD itself, I've just added to my GRUB the well-known hack
that boots straight the Clonezilla .ISO that lives in one of my partitions.
That GRUB entry also serves as a subtle reminder to take a backup.
The whole cycle (boot the PC, select Clonezilla from the GRUB menu,
backup the Linux partition to an un-compressed image, verify the saved
image and reboot) takes about 15 minutes. With a more powerful PC
it should only take about 6 minutes.
I plan to experiment in the near future with a BTRFS-based installation
to see if that "snapshots" feature is worth all that buzz.

User avatar
Jerry3904
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 22205
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:13 am

Re: Is MX-14.2 Crashable?

#16 Post by Jerry3904 » Sun Nov 23, 2014 8:27 am

Have you tried the snapshot in MX?
Production: 4.15.0-1-amd64, MX-17.1, AMD FX-4130 Quad-Core, GeForce GT 630/PCIe/SSE2, 8 GB, Kingston SSD 120 GB and WesternDigital 1TB
Testing: AAO 722: 4.15.0-1-386. MX-17.1, AMD C-60 APU, 4 GB

User avatar
Marinos
Forum Novice
Forum  Novice
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 1:44 am

Re: Is MX-14.2 Crashable?

#17 Post by Marinos » Sun Nov 23, 2014 9:09 am

@Jerry3904

Nope, used space of my Linux partition is close to 12Gb,
I don't see a point in using the snapshot feature of MX.

User avatar
Gaer Boy
Forum Guide
Forum Guide
Posts: 2121
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 6:06 am

Re: Is MX-14.2 Crashable?

#18 Post by Gaer Boy » Mon Nov 24, 2014 8:32 am

Re the original question - I have failed to crash MX-14.2. I finally tested it with a 'montage' command which reliably crashed Mepis 11 & 12. This produces a set of contact sheets from image files in a folder. It works fine with reasonable numbers of original images but running it on large numbers on Mepis escalated the memory use and then filled the swap, successfully locking the system.

On MX-14, I ran it on a folder of 150 2MB jpg files. Memory use increased rapidly from a normal 2GB to 5.2 GB which it sustained for 2 minutes. CPU usage was near 40%, with a brief peak at 90%, settling back to 24% as the memory usage dropped back to normal. I had hopes the operation would complete, but it failed with a segmentation fault. The system remained rock-stable.

Phil

AsRock FM2A88X-ITX+, A8-6500, 8GB, 120GB Samsung SSD (GPT), 1TB HDD (MBR), MX-17.1
Lenovo Thinkpad X220, dual-core i5, 3MB, 320GB Hitachi HDD, Win7, MX-17.1

User avatar
joany
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 5919
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:45 pm

Re: Is MX-14.2 Crashable?

#19 Post by joany » Mon Nov 24, 2014 9:19 am

I installed MX-14 and I've installed all the normal package updates, so I guess you could say I'm running MX-14.2 although I didn't install the latest version per se. I've only had a couple of freeze-ups when trying to use the satellite view on Google Maps, which forced me to reboot. Other than that, I've had no problems whatsoever. The other factor is me running KDE on top of MX-14, which some people consider a "hack." Overall, though, I'm very satisfied with the stability.
MX-14; 3.12-0.bpo.1-686-pae kernel using 4GB RAM
2.4GHz AMD Athlon 4600+
NVidia GeForce 6150 LE; 304.121 Display Driver
You didn't slow down because you're old; you're old because you slowed down.

User avatar
Jerry3904
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 22205
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:13 am

Re: Is MX-14.2 Crashable?

#20 Post by Jerry3904 » Mon Nov 24, 2014 9:25 am

The other factor is me running KDE on top of MX-14, which some people consider a "hack."
You talking about moi? I only used that term to try to differentiate MX-14 as released from an individually modified MX-14 with a new DE.
Production: 4.15.0-1-amd64, MX-17.1, AMD FX-4130 Quad-Core, GeForce GT 630/PCIe/SSE2, 8 GB, Kingston SSD 120 GB and WesternDigital 1TB
Testing: AAO 722: 4.15.0-1-386. MX-17.1, AMD C-60 APU, 4 GB

Post Reply

Return to “General”