On Thursday 26 October 2006 02:42, Darren Reed wrote:
> > On a related note, do you think it would be possible to allow ktrace to
> > use pipes?
>
> Have a look at NetBSD, it has something like this...although it is not
> without issues as ktrace doesn't stop the program to prevent missing
> events
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 06:18:36PM +0930, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> On Monday 24 July 2006 16:55, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-Jul-24 13:36:19 +0930, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> > >Ktrace is almost useless "out of the box" because for any non-trivial
> > >operation you run out of requests.
> >
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, the biggest thing I found when doing the PHOLD/P_WEXIT stuff that was
> missing was PIOCWAIT and PIOCCONT (IIRC). Specifically, we don't currently
> have any ptrace() equivalent to that.
I'm not sure that's a problem. I had at one point a versio
Robert Watson píše v po 24. 07. 2006 v 13:10 +0100:
> (3) truss is believed not to work properly with threaded applications. ktrace
> has been extended to know about thread IDs, and has always been able to
> generate traces properly for threaded apps, whereas truss likely doesn't
>
On Monday 24 July 2006 08:10, Robert Watson wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
>
> > On Friday, 21 July 2006 at 13:29:38 +0200, Dag-Erling Smrgrav wrote:
> >> Tom Rhodes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>> Wait. I'm lost. Isn't truss(1) broken on FreeBSD?
> >>
> >> Depends on
On Monday 24 July 2006 18:57, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Feel free to write something up (plain text is enough), which explains
> your wishes regarding kdump/ktrace and is usable for inclusion into
> the existing entry at http://www.FreeBSD.org/projects/ideas/.
>
> Other proposals for the ideas l
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
On Friday, 21 July 2006 at 13:29:38 +0200, Dag-Erling Smrgrav wrote:
Tom Rhodes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Wait. I'm lost. Isn't truss(1) broken on FreeBSD?
Depends on your definition of broken. It kind of works provided you have
/proc mou
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On Mon, 2006-Jul-24 13:36:19 +0930, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
Ktrace is almost useless "out of the box" because for any non-trivial
operation you run out of requests.
Some changes were made to improve this and this problem has mostly gone
away.
Mostly
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
On Monday 24 July 2006 12:28, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
ktrace is a good disk filling service if you run it like this.
truss IS more convenient.
If kdump could write to a pipe it would be almost as convenient.
Oh, and one more thing.. Ktrace is almo
Quoting Daniel O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Mon, 24 Jul 2006
18:18:36 +0930):
On Monday 24 July 2006 16:55, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On Mon, 2006-Jul-24 13:36:19 +0930, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
>Ktrace is almost useless "out of the box" because for any non-trivial
>operation you run out of req
On Monday 24 July 2006 16:55, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-Jul-24 13:36:19 +0930, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> >Ktrace is almost useless "out of the box" because for any non-trivial
> >operation you run out of requests.
>
> Some changes were made to improve this and this problem has mostly
> gone
On Mon, 2006-Jul-24 13:36:19 +0930, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
>Ktrace is almost useless "out of the box" because for any non-trivial
>operation you run out of requests.
Some changes were made to improve this and this problem has mostly
gone away.
--
Peter Jeremy
pgpN44vhhtIKj.pgp
Description: PG
"Daniel O'Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ktrace is almost useless "out of the box" because for any
> non-trivial operation you run out of requests.
It depends on what you use it for, and how you use it (with / without -t)
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Monday 24 July 2006 12:28, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> ktrace is a good disk filling service if you run it like this.
>
> truss IS more convenient.
>
> If kdump could write to a pipe it would be almost as convenient.
Oh, and one more thing..
Ktrace is almost useless "out of the box" because for an
On Monday 24 July 2006 10:34, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Greg 'groggy' Lehey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "Dag-Erling Smørgrav" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > ktrace(1) is better [than truss] in almost all respects.
> >
> > truss is good in that it gives immediate output.
>
> So does ktrace
Greg 'groggy' Lehey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Dag-Erling Smørgrav" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ktrace(1) is better [than truss] in almost all respects.
> truss is good in that it gives immediate output.
So does ktrace - just run kdump -l on a different terminal.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgr
On Friday, 21 July 2006 at 13:29:38 +0200, Dag-Erling Smrgrav wrote:
> Tom Rhodes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Wait. I'm lost. Isn't truss(1) broken on FreeBSD?
>
> Depends on your definition of broken. It kind of works provided you
> have /proc mounted. Still, there's really not much point i
17 matches
Mail list logo
