Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:12:53 -0400 From: Ed Maste <emaste@phaedrus.sandvine.ca> To: Mike Meyer <mwm-keyword-freebsdhackers2.e313df@mired.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@rinet.ru>, bob@tamara-b.org Subject: Re: A New FreeBSD Server Message-ID: <20060626181253.GA59701@sandvine.com> In-Reply-To: <17567.60116.599544.571163@bhuda.mired.org> References: <449D8616.5040306@tamara-b.org> <17565.37706.966913.737964@bhuda.mired.org> <20060626111208.P77513@woozle.rinet.ru> <17567.60116.599544.571163@bhuda.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 10:10:28AM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote: > 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? The core dump routine won't even attempt to write if the swap space is too small, so there's no ambiguity as to what makes it into the core file. FreeBSD 5.x and previous try to write all of memory out so the extra 64Kb or so is necessary. Also, -CURRENT uses "minidumps" on i386 and amd64, so only memory regions of use are written out and you can get by with swap smaller than RAM. -ed
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060626181253.GA59701>