Mirko Cetkovic wrote:
> - mytestapp is compiled without any switch
>
> CC -o mytestapp mytestapp.cc
why are you using C++ compiler for a simple C program (not that it should
make a difference ... but who knows?)?
> - Regarding -o switch and "set snooping=1" I will try it tonight as well
>
>
> The issue which bothers me is that it is possible to get unresponsive
> system during application tracing which is not in line with statement
> that I gave to my bosses that dtrace allows tracing with minimal system
> impact :))) If it proves that my stupid example hangs box for minutes it
> will be enough reason to reject all my efforts in convincing them to
> switch to solaris :(
one can overload any system :-)
you need to be careful with sweeping statements, as you've seen, since
there's frequently some way to prove an exception exists!
I once made the mistake of typing
pid$target:::
where I meant
pid$target:::entry,pid$target:::return
(because in the kernel's fbt provider, which was all I'd seen at the time,
that would have been the same), and the machine hung trying to instrument
*every instruction* in the target process.
IMO, DTrace is superior to any other technology in the same area, and, when
used appropriately, probe impact is minimal.
> I have to misuse this thread for another question: Q: Where can I
> discuss asynchronous socketing on [Open]Solaris ?
that'd be [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael
--
Michael Schuster http://blogs.sun.com/recursion
Recursion, n.: see 'Recursion'
_______________________________________________
dtrace-discuss mailing list
dtrace-discuss@opensolaris.org
