Re: (ASCEND) Is it ftik 6.1 bugged?

[Jason Nealis <nealis@babylon.erols.com>]

 Got one of these tonight on 6.1 :

SYSTEM IS UP:  Index: 100  Load: ftik.m40 Revision: 6.1.0
        Date: 06/03/1998.       Time: 15:37:33

FATAL ERROR:  Index: 8  Load: ftik.m40 Revision: 6.1.0
        Date: 06/04/1998.       Time: 03:41:44
        Location: b0062ebc 1bb81bb8 b00123d4 b004bca4 00000000 00000000

SYSTEM IS UP:  Index: 100  Load: ftik.m40 Revision: 6.1.0
        Date: 06/04/1998.       Time: 03:44:26             

Fun...

Jason Nealis
Director Internet Operations / Network Access
Erols Internet (An RCN Company)


On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, Oliver J. Albrecht wrote:

> In article <19980603222127.40927@ndh.net> you wrote:
> 
> >> We have none of these problems with the E1 version, although we
> >> do have a bunch of others:
> >> 
> 
> >I think there is either a lot higher memory usage or another memory leak in
> >eik.m40.
> 
> Seems like a sharp increase in memory usage to me, it's clearly visibly with
> feik.m40 as well. I'd estimate it to be around 400KB of additional usage 
> compared to 5.0Ap48. Not really critical for us, since the maxen we use are
> 1-2 PRI units (2012, 4030) only.
> 
> -- 
> Oliver J. Albrecht <oj@nexus.flensbone.net>
> ++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
> To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
> To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>
> 

++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>

---

References:

• Re: (ASCEND) Is it ftik 6.1 bugged?
• From: "Oliver J. Albrecht" <oj@nexus.flensbone.net>

---

• Prev by Date: Re: (ASCEND) ASCEND EUROPEAN SALES/MAINTENANCE SUPPORT
• Next by Date: (ASCEND) P75 NAT & Telnet
• Prev by thread: Re: (ASCEND) Is it ftik 6.1 bugged?
• Next by thread: (ASCEND) [Q] DSLPipe S as COE and CPE ?
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread