From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 20 17:21:05 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3531116A4CE; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:21:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from web.portaone.com (web.portaone.com [195.70.151.35]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B65E43D1F; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:21:04 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sobomax@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [192.168.0.73] (portacare.portaone.com [195.140.247.242]) (authenticated bits=0) by web.portaone.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i9KHKxpc033455 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:21:01 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from sobomax@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <41769E70.4020808@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:20:48 +0300 From: Maxim Sobolev User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex de Kruijff References: <41767CF1.2020005@FreeBSD.org> <20041020165900.GB834@alex.lan> In-Reply-To: <20041020165900.GB834@alex.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: arch@FreeBSD.org cc: "current@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: [Fwd: What do people think about not installing a stripped /kernel ?] X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:21:05 -0000 Let me clarify it down: it is only applies to HEAD, that is, unstable branch, which can be inheretedly buggy. STABLE/RELEASE doesn't really need this feature. This dismisses the following objections: 1. HDD size constrains: nobody really want to run unpatched HEAD on CF or the like, since with HEAD you are expected to re-compile more than often. 2. / partition size: anybody running HEAD is expected to allow this accomodate debugging kernel. 3. Additional slowdown: since it is adds up to 10 seconds (I bet that even less on a modern system) who cares? This is HEAD, so that it is expected to be sub-optimal performance-wise. 4. CD size constrains: again - it's for head. We don't put HEAD on CDs, except snapshots, but they generally go without packages. -Maxim Alex de Kruijff wrote: >>-------- Original Message -------- >>Subject: What do people think about not installing a stripped /kernel ? >>Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:12:00 -0700 (PDT) >>From: Matthew Dillon >>Newsgroups: dragonfly.kernel >> >>The only cost is disk space... e.g. 3MB stripped kernel verses 16MB >>debug kernel. But the debug info isn't actually loaded into memory so >>the kernel load time and memory overhead is the same as with the stripped >>version. >> >>The issue is bug reports and kernel core dumps. I can't count the number >>of times I have had to carefully instruct people to retrieve their >>kernel.debug's for bug reporting purposes. And even my own debugging >>would be more convenient if I didn't have to save off a separate copy of >>the debug version of the kernel. >> >>What I'm thinking of doing is having the installkernel target install the >>debug version rather then the stripped version unless told to install >>the stripped version with a new option, e.g. 'options INSTALL_STRIPPED'. >>We would ship full debug GENERIC kernels instead of stripped kernels. >>i.e. we aren't getting rid of the ability to install a stripped kernel, >>we just aren't making it the default any more. >> >>What do people think? > > > There are a couple downside. > > 1. Performance issues. (i.e. Longer startup time) > 2. There's more kernel to go in to the memory. > 3. The root partition need to be bigger. > > FreeBSD 5.0 was slow when it came out of the box. So I think its a great idee for the prerelease but bad the releases them selfs.