From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 21 00:58:40 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 CE8C016A4CE; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 00:58:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [200.46.204.220]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8799B43D49; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 00:58:40 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A971A12AD19; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:58:33 -0300 (ADT) Received: from hub.org ([200.46.204.220]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 71369-03; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 00:58:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (blk-222-46-91.eastlink.ca [24.222.46.91]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C93312AD18; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:58:32 -0300 (ADT) Received: by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id F119D395E4; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:58:35 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E293A38E0D; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:58:35 -0300 (ADT) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:58:35 -0300 (ADT) From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: Alex de Kruijff In-Reply-To: <20041020165900.GB834@alex.lan> Message-ID: <20041020215754.U25182@ganymede.hub.org> References: <41767CF1.2020005@FreeBSD.org> <20041020165900.GB834@alex.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org cc: Maxim Sobolev 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: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 00:58:41 -0000 On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, 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. Ummm, from reading Matt's posting, neither of these two apply ... he states this right in his first paragraph ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664