Talk:Kernel panic

This Link seems to be broken: http://resource.intel.com/telecom/support/tnotes/tnbyos/2000/tn062.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.108.138.54 (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Why the redirect? Windows BSOD has its own page. Compie 10:19, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Because no-one has written a more specific article yet. If there is enough information available, please do so. T.P.K. 10:12, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Remove references to OSX?

I don't think there should be a mention of OSX. "It Just Works", so obviously someone is just making up a rumor about Macs crashing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.147.178 (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been dealing with an iMac that has a Kernel Panic… your statement is false sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.89.82 (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's definitely false. There are places to show how peeved you are about people saying "Macs don't crash", but Talk:Kernel panic isn't one of them. Guy Harris (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Kernel panic of death

Anonymous user from 82.182.82.20 (Talk) cut-pasted and redirected this article to "Kernel panic of death" (diff). I reverted it, however, since it was unexplained and I doubt that's the correct term to use. Mysid (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Late to the game, but... that would be a very odd usage indeed. Haikupoet 03:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

kernel panic linux

i have a mandrake on qemu.Just tell me how i have to fuck up the kernel in order to have a nice kernel panic.--Pixel ;-) 16:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

set init as an unusable ELF binary ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.63.229.70 (talk • contribs)

"Invincible" OS X

So, the "Mighty" OS X is vulnerable? in your face, Windows bashers! (comment made back when i was 50% more biased towards mac. Now i'm only Biased towards their commercials.) system 6-9 on, Maiq the liar 22:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Go back and re-read your Gödel, Escher, Bach. It's impossible to make a 100% invulnerable OS. (Really.) :-)

(And here's a memorable short story: "The Stopping Problem", by John Reilly - [1]) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture

We need a better picture! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.156.190 (talk • contribs)

Merge with Screens of Death?

I'm curious as to why this page contains the tag to merge it with the screens of death; kernel panic seems to be the more technical term for that, so shouldn't screens of death be merged into kernel panic, rather than the other way around?? Of course, I say this thinking that all screens of death result from kernel panic. QuantumAmyrillis (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"Kernel panic" is terminology specific to UNIX and UNIX-like OSs. "Screens of death" are more generic and can be associated with other OSs and embedded systems. I don't see the need to merge. Letdorf (talk) 09:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC).

• Oppose merging, it's not a "screen", it's a whole concept. Adamantios (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, same as Adamantios. --arny (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Control-Alt-Delete after a panic

Why can't one Control-Alt-Delete#Linux after a kernel panic? Why must we walk over to the box and press the reset button instead? Jidanni (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• You would have to talk to Linus about that. It's an OS function and I think it's actually trapped by the GUI if you're running X. Haikupoet (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• At risk of talking about the subject, not the article, for Linux if you use

echo 10 > /proc/sys/kernel/panic  

the kernel will try to reboot the machine 10 seconds after it panics [2]. Failing that, Alt-SysRq-b might work, see Magic_SysRq_key. X blocks Ctrl-Alt-Delete, if X crashes, or the kernel crashes when X is running then Ctrl-Alt-Delete remains blocked. CS Miller (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

So that you have an opportunity to see the panic stack on the console. It doesn't always get logged, for example if the issue is in the disk subsystem. Yworo (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Mac bit, seriously

Why is OSX mentioned at all? It falls under the Unix/Unix-like OS category mentioned at the start. The information in that section strikes me as completely irrelevant, and could be added for any Unix OS. 130.88.254.61 (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Mac OS X has a distinctive visual indication of a kernel panic which is quite different from the typical console output in other kinds of Unix. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

Snow Leopard

I have recently got a kernel panic in snow leapord (10.6.6) and it looks completely different from the leapard one. It was white text on black and overwrote the top left part of my screen.(like this) It also contained more diagnostic information and was only in English. The gray box with the instructions to restart seems to not appear every time (google)--Walkerm930 (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The kernel panic message in your picture is not specific to 10.6: I've seen similar in 10.5 and Apple's support article about panics [3] also depicts a similar display for 10.0 to 10.1.5. It would seem that sometimes a panic will result in the "You need to restart your computer" box, and sometimes you just get the raw Darwin console output overwriting the screen like in your photo. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC).

You probably have the "Disable graphical panic dialog" flag set in the NVRAM debugging flags; that's a useful flag for people doing kernel development. See Apple's list of NVRAM debugging flags. Guy Harris (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I've had this exact problem. I got a kernel panic, just by starting safari after a boot, and it had the same black text on the top left of the screen. 70.196.4.168 (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

What does "not syncing" mean in kernel panics?

What exactly does "not syncing" mean in a kernel panic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Pina (talk • contribs) 02:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It presumably means "not syncing", i.e. not writing out data in kernel file system buffers to the file system. As the article indicates in the example Version 6 Unix panic code, it, at least, would always sync out that data when panicking. Guy Harris (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)