Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 10:10:28 -0400 From: Mike Meyer <mwm-keyword-freebsdhackers2.e313df@mired.org> To: Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@rinet.ru> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, bob@tamara-b.org Subject: Re: A New FreeBSD Server Message-ID: <17567.60116.599544.571163@bhuda.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <20060626111208.P77513@woozle.rinet.ru> References: <449D8616.5040306@tamara-b.org> <17565.37706.966913.737964@bhuda.mired.org> <20060626111208.P77513@woozle.rinet.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In <20060626111208.P77513@woozle.rinet.ru>, Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@rinet.ru> typed: > On Sat, 24 Jun 2006, Mike Meyer wrote: > MM> The other constraint on swap is that if you want the system to save a > MM> core dump if it panics, you need a device to dump on that's 64Kb > MM> bigger than ram. That's one device, not all of swap. > This is not quite true, as there always are some unused memory regions, hence > you need not add 64k to RAM size. At least, I had no trouble using swap == RAM > for last 5 years or so... Or memory areas that aren't needed when doing the post mortem. The question is, how do you guarantee that those are what's not going to make it out to the dump device? <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?17567.60116.599544.571163>