Comment 2 for bug 73982

Well, it was for a long while. The dapper server kernel oopsed or crashed a couple of times a month on that machine... which just wasn't acceptable, so I moved to a hand-compiled 2.6.16.x kernel, and that machine has been much more stable since then. And with the new LTS release coming out soon, we'll be moving to that in a couple of months. So no, this isn't really an issue for us anymore, although not quite for the rights reasons, IMHO.

I don't mean to complain (especially given that we're not paying anything for what is a very nice OS), but given that the bug report was a detailed oops trace instead something unspecific like "the machine crashes from time to time under load", I would have expected someone who can decode and understand kernel oopses (Canonical does have at least one of those on staff, don't you?) to have a look at the oops, at least to see if it pointed directly to an easy kernel bug. Or in the trickier case of "data structure had been corrupted by something else previously", at least to know what got corrupted.

Did this one just fall through the cracks, or are kernel oops reports just not a priority? It there something I should have done to raise the importance of the oopses I reported? I must admit this makes me a bit nervous about moving to the new LTS release. What if I hit another bug like this one? (We can move this discussion out of the bug report if you want.) Thanks.