"Kurtis D. Rader" wrote: > On Mon, 2006-05-08 10:58:39, Dave Anderson wrote: > > I know I'm setting myself up for flames here, but why not use NFS? Prior > > to writing this, I was just looking at an x86_64 vmcore file stored on, > > and NFS-mounted from, an x86 netdump server, and have done that many > > times. > > That strategy is helpful but for my team not as useful as you might > think. We only have one production server in our lab. It is an x86 system > with eight CPUs and 8 GiB of memory. Everything else in our lab is used > for problem reproduction. So you never know exactly what state they're > in. And most of the lab systems have only 1 GiB of memory which makes > analyzing large dumps an exercise in thrashing the disks. Our little s390 > system doesn't even have that much memory assigned to each LPAR. Also, > we haven't been able to convince management to spend the money to upgrade > our lab infrastructure. So we're limited to 100 Mbps ethernet between > most of the systems. > > Heck, my desktop (dual core AMD 64 with 4 GiB of memory and two Western > Digital Raptor SATA disks) is more powerful than almost all of my lab > systems. As a consequence that is where I do all of my x86/x86_64 analysis. > > Dave, have you heard from rainer.bawidamann@xxxxxxxxxx? He's leading an > effort to create a cross-arch capable version of crash. Last I heard the > current implementation only supports host=x86/target=ppc32. No -- Corey Minyard from Monte Vista did a ppc32 implementation. It was a ~15K lines-of-code patch that was way too intrusive to ever consider for a RHEL version of crash. Plus it made even the simplest crash functions a pain in the ass, because for every single memory access, it had to deal with 32-bit vs. 64-bit as well as endian issues. The patch was *really* ugly, but it worked for them... Dave
