Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 00:17:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> To: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: swapon vs savecore dilemma Message-ID: <20030902001511.Y6074@znfgre.qbhto.arg> In-Reply-To: <20030902070502.GQ38141@over-yonder.net> References: <41076.1062480964@critter.freebsd.dk> <20030901233731.U6074@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <20030902070502.GQ38141@over-yonder.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
> 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.
I agree that this _should_ be the case, but I've seen the advice of
putting in swap space equal to the amount of memory often enough to make
me nervous that this is a safe assumption.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030902001511.Y6074>