On 10/01/2008, Nathan Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike Strosaker wrote: > > > > At the risk of repeating what others have already said, the PHYP-assistance > > method provides some advantages that the kexec method cannot: > > - Availability of the system for production use before the dump data is > > collected. As was mentioned before, some production systems may choose not > > to operate with the limited memory initially available after the reboot, > > but it sure is nice to provide the option. > > I'm more concerned that this design encourages the user to resume a > workload *which is almost certainly known to result in a system crash* > before collection of crash data is complete. Maybe the gamble will > pay off most of the time, but I wouldn't want to be working support > when it doesn't.
Workloads that cause crashes within hours of startup tend to be weeded-out/discovered during pre-production test of the system to be deployed. Since its pre-production test, dumps can be taken in a leisurely manner. Heck, even a session at the xmon prompt can be contemplated. The problem is when the crash only reproduces after days or weeks of uptime, on a production machine. Since the machine is in production, its got to be brought back up ASAP. Since its crashing only after days/weeks, the dump should have plenty of time to complete. (And if it crashes quickly after that reboot ... well, support people always welcome ways in which a bug can be reproduced more quickly/easily). --linas _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev