Dirk Meyer wrote:
Wouldn't fsck - mount - savecore - swapon be a more appropriate order?
Terry Lambert schrieb:,
If you had small enough disks, large enough RAM, or could limit
the number of CG bitmaps you had to simultaneously examine, then
yes. Otherwise, no.
Can't we get a knob
Hey folks,
It looks like we may need to rethink the way swap is mounted at boot time
if we want crashdumps to work.
Recently(?), a change was made so you can no longer open a swap partition
read/write after it is activated with swapon(8). In the current boot
sequence, swap is mounted before the
Doug White wrote:
Hey folks,
It looks like we may need to rethink the way swap is mounted at boot time
if we want crashdumps to work.
Recently(?), a change was made so you can no longer open a swap partition
read/write after it is activated with swapon(8). In the current boot
sequence, swap is
Scott Long wrote:
Doug White wrote:
Hey folks,
It looks like we may need to rethink the way swap is mounted at boot
time
if we want crashdumps to work.
I question the wizdom of what you're describing. If swap space needs to
be made available for fsck to run, then what happens to the
Doug White wrote:
It looks like we may need to rethink the way swap is mounted at boot time
if we want crashdumps to work.
Recently(?), a change was made so you can no longer open a swap partition
read/write after it is activated with swapon(8). In the current boot
sequence, swap is
Pawel Worach wrote:
Is fsck really that memory heavy so that it needs swap?
Yes, if you have a huge FS.
The problem is that the checking of the CG bitmaps during an fsck
require that you have all the bitmaps in core, and then linearly
traverse the entire directory structure to identify which
Is fsck really that memory heavy so that it needs swap?
Yes, if you have a huge FS.
The problem is that the checking of the CG bitmaps during an fsck
require that you have all the bitmaps in core
Hmm
For a one TB FS with 8KB block size you need 2^(40-13) bits
to keep track of blocks.
I usualy have a number of swap partitions since the max size of a swap
partition is kind of limited. I was thinking of changing it to do swapon
twice. The first time early in the boot would skip mounting any swap
areas that had kernel core dumps. Then after the savecore it could do
swapon
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Aaron Wohl writes:
I usualy have a number of swap partitions since the max size of a swap
partition is kind of limited. I was thinking of changing it to do swapon
twice. The first time early in the boot would skip mounting any swap
areas that had kernel core dumps.
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Hmm, that was an unfortunate side effect.
Heh, well, stuff happens. I think your idea of opening swap exclusive is
probably a good one, but it will require some gymnastics to accomodate
it. One thing that'd really help is an option to savecore that
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Barton writes:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Hmm, that was an unfortunate side effect.
Heh, well, stuff happens. I think your idea of opening swap exclusive is
probably a good one, but it will require some gymnastics to accomodate
it.
Yeah, but
Doug Barton wrote:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Hmm, that was an unfortunate side effect.
Heh, well, stuff happens. I think your idea of opening swap exclusive is
probably a good one, but it will require some gymnastics to accomodate
it. One thing that'd really help is an
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 12:58:40AM -0600 I heard the voice of
Scott Long, and lo! it spake thus:
I still think that the real problem is in running swapon before
savecore. In 99% of the cases out there, RAM scales with storage,
so I really can't imaging fsck needing to swap, and certainly not
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 12:58:40AM -0600 I heard the voice of
Scott Long, and lo! it spake thus:
I still think that the real problem is in running swapon before
savecore. In 99% of the cases out there, RAM scales with storage,
so I really
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Scott Long wrote:
I still think that the real problem is in running swapon before
savecore. In 99% of the cases out there, RAM scales with storage,
so I really can't imaging fsck needing to swap, and certainly not
in it's 'preen-before-background' mode.
I agree, but the
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Barton writes:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Hmm, that was an unfortunate side effect.
Heh, well, stuff happens. I think your idea of opening swap exclusive is
probably a good one, but it will
16 matches
Mail list logo
