Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:08:42 +0200 From: Alex de Kruijff <freebsd@akruijff.dds.nl> To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> Cc: "current@freebsd.org" <current@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: [Fwd: What do people think about not installing a stripped /kernel ?] Message-ID: <20041023140842.GA8486@alex.lan> In-Reply-To: <20041020215754.U25182@ganymede.hub.org> References: <41767CF1.2020005@FreeBSD.org> <20041020165900.GB834@alex.lan> <20041020215754.U25182@ganymede.hub.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 09:58:35PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > 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 <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> > >>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 ... I'm sorry I overlooked that. -- Alex
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041023140842.GA8486>