I will need to pass this to Sean Callanan to see if he can tell anything. It
might be a few days before he can get to it.
I'll let you know when I know more.
> On Nov 4, 2015, at 12:10 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
>
> Greg Clayton wrote:
>> Follow my previous suggestions: enable lldb expr
We currently do stream it out to network attached storage except that doesn't
scale when multi servers core at once. The whole point of this is try and
reduce the amount of data needed to be saved and not save the same core twice.
Mark Chandler
Battle.Net Engineering Systems | Blizzard Entertai
It's going to be quite difficult for lldb to do anything reasonable with the
core file if we can't seek around in it. So for practical purposes it is going
to have to get stored somehow, either in a file or in some memory that lldb can
do random access on. So practically whoever is getting thi
Im not sure, but I assume that the kernel writes the core out as the process
reads it. Will need to dig into the kernel code to confirm.
Mark Chandler
Battle.Net Engineering Systems | Blizzard Entertainment
(P) 949-955-1380 x15353
-Original Message-
From: Greg Clayton [mailto:gclay...@a
So the entire core file is in memory somehow and when it is read from STDIN
will be then be freed? Seems like a really lame way to pass the core file
around as it requires up to 2x the size of the core in memory. We could add a
new version of SBTarget::LoadCore() like:
SBProcess
SBTarget::LoadC
The problem becomes when the core data on stdin is gigabytes in size and there
is little to no diskspace or memory (as the process is still around) to
store/process the data.
Mark Chandler
Battle.Net Engineering Systems | Blizzard Entertainment
(P) 949-955-1380 x15353
-Original Message
> On Nov 4, 2015, at 9:47 AM, Todd Fiala wrote:
>
> Although doing any kind of waitpid() in the case of a core file doesn't make
> sense.
The process is still around. The process is being handed the core file via
STDIN, but the process is still around and this tool is attaching to that
proce
Although doing any kind of waitpid() in the case of a core file doesn't
make sense.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Todd Fiala wrote:
> Hey Pavel,
>
> I think Mark is also on RHEL 5-era, so this going *way* back in the kernel
> space. It is entirely possible he is seeing different behavior base
Hey Pavel,
I think Mark is also on RHEL 5-era, so this going *way* back in the kernel
space. It is entirely possible he is seeing different behavior based on
that. We only recently started working on RHEL 7 and (I've heard reports
of) 6. So this could just be legitimate behavioral difference th
