Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 03:20:28 +0100 From: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, Jeremie Le Hen <jeremie@le-hen.org> Subject: Re: fstab type "dp" Message-ID: <200901140320.28524.max@love2party.net> In-Reply-To: <20090114011055.GK41799@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> References: <20090113210716.GI41799@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <20090113212355.GG2247@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20090114011055.GK41799@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 14 January 2009 02:10:55 Jeremie Le Hen wrote: > Dear Kostik, > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:23:55PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote: > > What are the supposed advantages of this approach over the dumpdev > > variable in rc.conf ? I see that having whole partition usage > > configuration in fstab is natural, so the idea of the patch is > > probably right. > > This is exactly the point. fstab(5) will describe every partition > usage. > > > One the other hand, is it possible to enchance > > this to allow specification of the swap partition that is also > > a dump partition, in fstab ? > > Well, actually I think it makes more sense to automatically add "dp" > device as swap. You will find an updated patch attached where swapon(8) > has been modified to implement this behaviour. Is it better now? I don't agree here. The point of having a dedicated dump device could be to not overwrite the state of the swap when dumping core. In addition, a dump device could double as a place for suspend to disk if/when we implement this - in this scenario it would also be required that the dump device does not hold valuable swap data. -- /"\ Best regards, | mlaier@freebsd.org \ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661 X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | mlaier@EFnet / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200901140320.28524.max>