From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Mar 14 3:18: 0 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mass.dis.org (dhcp45-21.dis.org [216.240.45.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F270E37B416; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 03:17:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mass.dis.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mass.dis.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g2EBH4D02622; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 03:17:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from msmith@mass.dis.org) Message-Id: <200203141117.g2EBH4D02622@mass.dis.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Garance A Drosihn Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav , Josef Karthauser , arch@FreeBSD.ORG, peter@FreeBSD.ORG, jake@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: dumpsys() rewrite In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 13 Mar 2002 10:42:41 EST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 03:17:03 -0800 From: Michael Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > >dumpsys() controls what is written and when. It is perfectly > >conceivable for dumpsys() to do the same kind of hole compression > >that savecore(1) does, but it would be *much* slower and ... > > Would it make any sense to compress it in the 'gzip' sense of > the word (or some simpler algorithm)? Or does it already do > some of that? The problem here is that when dumpsys is called, the system is in an unknown but probably hosed state. Compression algorithms typically require considerable amounts of memory, which would have to be tied down at startup to avoid depending on a possibly broken, deadlocked or corrupt allocator at dump time. -- To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. - Theodore Roosevelt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message