From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Apr 5 12: 0:15 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7283437B416 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 12:00:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id 55721AE0C7; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 12:00:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 12:00:05 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Alessandro de Manzano Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is a debug kernel slower than a non-debug one ? Message-ID: <20020405200005.GY93885@elvis.mu.org> References: <20020405215712.A14188@libero.sunshine.ale> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020405215712.A14188@libero.sunshine.ale> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Alessandro de Manzano [020405 11:57] wrote: > Hello! > > Well, the subj says more or less all.. ;-) > > On 4.x-STABLE systems, a kernel compiled with "options DDB" and > "makeoptions DEBUG=-g" is, at execution, slower than one compiled > without that two settings ? > Or is it "only" bigger on disk and, maybe, in memory ? > > I ask you this because I'm evaluating the possibility of enabling DDB > on my production servers' kernel so in the very rare case of crash I'll > got a crash dump ( I'ld use also options DDB_UNATTENDED) and could > immediately have a backtrace report. > > ..Am I crazy ? :-)) I don't think you'll notice a difference for most stuff, this is how I ran my production boxes for quite a while when I was doing admin work. It helped a _lot_ if a problem happened. -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message