Andrey Petrov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 05:37:55PM -0400, leam wrote:
> 
>>Well, I'm on a U1, and the kernel and userland is 1.6.1 as of a couple 
>>days ago. I'm getting some of the "355" lines into a file, but it sounds 
>>like you're saying I'd be better off moving this machine to -current?
>>
>>   355 dump     CALL  read(0x3,0x40205008,0x1000)
>>   355 dump     GIO   fd 3 read 4096 bytes
>>   355 dump     RET   read 4096/0x1000
>>   355 dump     CALL  flock(0x3,0x8)
>>   355 dump     RET   flock 0
>>   355 dump     CALL  flock(0x3,0x2)
>>   355 dump     RET   flock 0
>>   355 dump     CALL  lseek(0x3,0,0x51ea8000,0)
>>   355 dump     RET   lseek 1374322688/0x51ea800
>>
> 
> 
> I'd say if you don't have problems running -current then yes. I saw
> couple problems U1 and -current related so be aware.
> 
> W/regard to dump problem: it's much easier to debug a problem if you
> have 'a working case', so I'd compare ktraces from dump runs under -current
> and 1.6.1 kernels. BTW, dump forks several child processes so you need to use
> ktrace -i to include children.
> 
> 	Andrey

I'll do that and see, the script works on -current. My main reason for 
staying on 1.6.1 is that this machine is supposed to be the "stable" 
one. It will run the dns, ntp, etc for the other boxes, and I don't want 
to mess with it much after I get it configured properly.

The *other* box is the one that gets messed with.  :)

Is there a way to cut down the kdump output? Last night I had *lots* of 
"\0\0\0" lines. I'll read up on kdump and report back when I have something.

ciao!

leam