Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 14:13:51 -0600 From: "Rick C. Petty" <rick-freebsd2009@kiwi-computer.com> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, jhs@berklix.com, Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de> Subject: Re: limits for run away Firefox ? Message-ID: <20100119201351.GA76360@keira.kiwi-computer.com> In-Reply-To: <4B54C3C7.5040904@FreeBSD.org> References: <201001181929.o0IJT5IZ001218@lurza.secnetix.de> <4B54C3C7.5040904@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:25:43PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: > On 01/18/10 11:29, Oliver Fromme wrote: > > Doug Barton wrote: > > > On 01/17/10 17:07, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > > > > Hi hackers > > > > I'm tired of my X server occasionaly freezing, swap thrasing, & firefox dumps: > > > > 4,346,937,344 ~/firefox-bin.core > > > > so as a temporary cludge I ran > > > > touch ~/firefox-bin.core ; chmod 000 ~/firefox-bin.core > > > > > > Sorry I don't have a solution to your actual problem, but a better way > > > to deal with this is to do: ln -s /dev/null ~/firefox-bin.core > > > > I think not generating a core dump at all is better than > > writing 4 GB to /dev/null. > > A) The method I proposed is useful for other things too, and as you > pointed out it can sometimes be difficult to track down all the ways a > given thing is started. What about just adding the limit command to the /usr/local/bin/firefox script? That would guarantee any instantiation of firefox wouldn't dump core. > B) If we're going to be snarky, it would be far better if it didn't need > to dump core in the first place. :) I don't think that Oliver was at all snarky. He was merely suggesting a solution which would prevent the core file from being generated at all; the OP was tired of the extra time spent and Oliver's suggestion would certainly reduce this time. The symlink seems to hackish to me, although I've had to use it often in other situations. And in some cases the culprit would unlink(2) it first, so I've had to "chflags noschg" it, which works better than "chmod 000" (if the FS supports it). But I agree that it would be nice to prevent ffox from segfaulting; unfortunately this is one of those apps which segfaults a lot (for me at least). =) Cheers, -- Rick C. Petty
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100119201351.GA76360>