On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 03:25:08AM -0600, Scott Long wrote: >Peter Jeremy wrote: >>On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 12:13:39AM -0400, Robert Watson wrote: >> >>>Funky, eh? I thought we used to have code to ipi the other cpu's and halt >>>them until the cpu in ddb was out agian. I guess I mis-remember, or that >>>code is broken... >> >> >>Look on it as a feature - most other Unices can't survive a panic. >>Being able to continue running in a degraded mode until a suitable >>maintenance window is available would be a real selling point in >>HA applications. Even being able to shutdown cleanly would be >>better than coming to a screaming halt. :-) (sort of). > >Not sure if you're joking or not here. I was joking about the FreeBSD behaviour (hence the smiley) but serious about the (potential) benefits of being able to degrade rather than die. > A panic usually means that >something unrecoverable happened, and that continuing on is not safe. I realise that. Hence actually being able to continue after a panic would be extremely difficult to do safely. (Probably not possible in general, though it might be in some special cases). PeterReceived on Thu Apr 08 2004 - 02:44:50 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:50 UTC