Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 11:00:10 -0400 From: "Charles Swiger" <cswiger@mac.com> To: <stable@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: 4.7-RELEASE crash [file system] Message-ID: <003a01c27849$6367d4d0$0301a8c0@prime> References: <20021019130404.A25131-100000@edge.foundation.invalid> <001901c27798$d033df70$0301a8c0@prime> <3DB2399F.3060900@zbzoom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Chris BeHanna wrote: > Charles Swiger wrote: [ ...taking crash dumps... ] > Reason #1 may be that some folks might not have enough space in > /var to hold one or more crash dumps (in particular, a large server > box with 4GB of RAM might easily run into this problem). A point. On the other hand, can't savecore figure out that there isn't enough space and not do the dump, then? > Reason #2 might be that a crash dump isn't of much use without a > kernel that has debugging symbols in it. Right-- but that's _my_ point. :-) People following -STABLE should be building kernels with debugging symbols, so that the members of this list have a better chance of figuring out what went wrong when a system panics. At least at one time, if you build an executable with -g, strip it & ship the binary elsewhere...then the core files generated by that stripped executable can be symbolicly debugged using the unstripped version. Has this changed? -Chuck PS: Arguably, people should be building with "-g -O" all of the time, even in production. GCC tends to generate the most reliable code for that combination of options, as those are exercised the most frequently. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?003a01c27849$6367d4d0$0301a8c0>