[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: What's left over.
    I'm kind of new here, but I'll present my case in hope that someone
    listens to me.

    On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:

    > On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Rusty Russell wrote:
    > > Crash Dumping (LKCD)
    > This is definitely a vendor-driven thing. I don't believe it has any
    > relevance unless vendors actively support it.

    This is something that we're just starting to use in my department in
    Purdue - we work with clustering, and LKCD will let us determine why our
    nodes decide to kernel panic since it's generally not worthwhile to
    connect a head to each machine.

    I see LKCD as having a big impact by allowing kernels to be debugged after
    they have panic'd (and thus don't send out a message to syslog). It can
    especially be usful in compute farms, or other scenerios where it's
    difficut or cost prohibitive to connect a console (or console server) to
    each individual machine.

    > > EVMS
    > Not for the feature freeze, there are some noises that imply that SuSE may
    > push it in their kernels.

    I think that the integration between RAID and LVM is a good thing, and
    EVMS's 'plug-in module' architecture will help tremendously to bring
    interoperation with other systems' volume management subsystems.
    Specifically, the interoperation with IBM's JFS LVM and MS's LVM will be
    helpful for people trying to migrate their servers over from those OS's to

    -- Pat

    Purdue University ITAP/RCS
    Information Technology at Purdue
    Research Computing and Storage

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:30    [W:0.037 / U:51.700 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site