Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 15 Feb 2002 07:55:32 -0500 | From | Michael Sinz <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Core dump file control |
| |
Martin Dalecki wrote: > > Jakob Østergaard wrote: > > >On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 12:44:42PM +0100, Martin Dalecki wrote: > > > >>Jakob Østergaard wrote: > >> > >... > > > >>>What I want is "core.[process name]" eventually with a ".[pid]" appended. A > >>>flexible scheme like your patch implements is very nice. Actually having > >>>the core files in CWD is fine for me - I mainly care about the file name. > >>> > >>Please execute the size command on the core fiel: > >> > >>size core > >> > >>to see why this isn't needed. > >> > > > >Huh ? > > > >I suppose you mean, that I can get the name of the executable that caused the > >core dump, when running size - right ? > > > >Well, you can do that easier with the file command. > > > >But that doesn't prevent my 7 other processes from overwriting the core file > >of the 8'th process which was the first one to crash. Multi-process systems > >can, on occation, produce such "domino dumps". Separate names is a *must have*. > > > This point I fully agree with. And in fact 2.4.17 already does it the > core.{pid} way.
This is still not a very good way to control the names.
What I have is a cluster of nearly 100 machines - all but one of them have no disk. When something goes down on one of the machines, I would like to know (a) what it was that went down and (b) which machine it was on. I would also like to have the core files someplace that is writable (all but the /coredumps directory is read-only - oh, and the local tmpfs mounts for /var and /etc)
> >And having process names is nicer than having PIDs - I don't mind if my core > >files are over-written on subsequent runs, actually it's nice (keeps the disks > >from filling up). > > They can get long and annoying... They are not suitable for short name > filesystems... They provide a good > hint for deliberate overwrites.... and so on. Basically I think this > would be too much of the good.
I was very carefull to keep that behavior consistant with 2.4.17. That is, if you do nothing different with the kernel.core_name_format then it will work just as before. And only root can change that sysctl.
As to "overwrites" and the like, I have much less overwrites with most any pattern form than with just plain "core" And I can support features that many people have wanted (%N.core being a very popular construct).
-- Michael Sinz ---- Worldgate Communications ---- msinz@wgate.com A master's secrets are only as good as the master's ability to explain them to others. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |