Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 21:44:41 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> To: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: panic on one cpu leaves others running... Message-ID: <20040408114441.GB6458@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <40751A74.50504@freebsd.org> References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040408001234.39416A-100000@fledge.watson.org> <20040408091030.GA6458@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <40751A74.50504@freebsd.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 03:25:08AM -0600, Scott Long wrote: >Peter Jeremy wrote: >>On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 12:13:39AM -0400, Robert Watson wrote: >> >>>Funky, eh? I thought we used to have code to ipi the other cpu's and halt >>>them until the cpu in ddb was out agian. I guess I mis-remember, or that >>>code is broken... >> >> >>Look on it as a feature - most other Unices can't survive a panic. >>Being able to continue running in a degraded mode until a suitable >>maintenance window is available would be a real selling point in >>HA applications. Even being able to shutdown cleanly would be >>better than coming to a screaming halt. :-) (sort of). > >Not sure if you're joking or not here. I was joking about the FreeBSD behaviour (hence the smiley) but serious about the (potential) benefits of being able to degrade rather than die. > A panic usually means that >something unrecoverable happened, and that continuing on is not safe. I realise that. Hence actually being able to continue after a panic would be extremely difficult to do safely. (Probably not possible in general, though it might be in some special cases). Peterhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040408114441.GB6458>