Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:12:26 +0100 From: Patrick =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Lamaizi=E8re?= <patfbsd@davenulle.org> To: Peter Steele <psteele@maxiscale.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What is correct way to enable watchdog? Message-ID: <20090224231226.5f815ce2@baby-jane.lamaiziere.net> In-Reply-To: <7836999.881235509269433.JavaMail.HALO$@halo> References: <32561700.861235508797247.JavaMail.HALO$@halo> <7836999.881235509269433.JavaMail.HALO$@halo>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Le Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:01:13 -0800 (PST),
Peter Steele <psteele@maxiscale.com>:
> > If -e cmd is not specified, the daemon will
> > perform a trivial file system check instead.
>
> So -e has to be provided for the system to reboot?
No, if -e is provided, watchdogd execute the command 'cmd', if the
command succeed it resets and restarts the watchdog.
Without -e, watchdogd tests a stat("/etc",xxx) syscall.
See http://ezine.daemonnews.org/200406/watchdog.html
> >This smells more like a bug in watchdog. If that's the case, the
> >crash dumps should point right at it, at which point I'd take it to
> >freebsd-stable or -current, whichever applies to the OS version.
>
> Okay, we'll enable dumpdev/dumpdir and see what we get.
If the watchdog is a hardware watchdog, you will not get any log or
crash dump, just a hard reset.
Which watchdog are you using?
Regards.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090224231226.5f815ce2>