From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 2 00:05:08 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 071A116A4BF; Tue, 2 Sep 2003 00:05:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from praetor.linc-it.com (hardtime.linuxman.net [66.147.26.65]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DDC644032; Tue, 2 Sep 2003 00:05:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fullermd@over-yonder.net) Received: from mortis.over-yonder.net (adsl-19-135-74.jan.bellsouth.net [68.19.135.74]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by praetor.linc-it.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6882B154F6; Tue, 2 Sep 2003 02:05:05 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mortis.over-yonder.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 5025420F2A; Tue, 2 Sep 2003 02:05:03 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 02:05:02 -0500 From: "Matthew D. Fuller" To: Scott Long Message-ID: <20030902070502.GQ38141@over-yonder.net> References: <41076.1062480964@critter.freebsd.dk> <20030901233731.U6074@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <3F543FA0.7020801@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F543FA0.7020801@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i-fullermd.1 X-Editor: vi X-OS: FreeBSD cc: Poul-Henning Kamp cc: Doug Barton cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: swapon vs savecore dilemma X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 07:05:08 -0000 On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 12:58:40AM -0600 I heard the voice of Scott Long, and lo! it spake thus: > > I still think that the real problem is in running swapon before > savecore. In 99% of the cases out there, RAM scales with storage, > so I really can't imaging fsck needing to swap, and certainly not > in it's 'preen-before-background' mode. Note also that (last I heard, anyway) this is often "worked around", or non-issued, by us allocating swap from the "bottom" of the partition up, and coredumps happening from the "top" down. So, if you've got 512 megs of swap, and 128 megs of ram, you'd need to use 384 megs of swap (+/- housekeeping) before you corrupted your core. -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/ "The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, is because I haven't figured out how to light the middle yet"