Re: [Netconsole-devel] status?

[H. P. A. <hp...@tr...>]

Jim Garlick wrote:
> 
> Ah - here is where we differ, I am planning for LinuxBIOS so I always have
> the whole kernel underneath.
> 

That's great for when that's available, but it can't be a requirement.

> > Again, more complexity at the client.  If you're willing to accept data
> > loss, which you obviously are, then why are you worried about "a single
> > point of failure"; note that the idea of the protocol is that the server
> > can be rebooted or even replaced, so you could keep a hot spare available
> > and switch it in place with a simple ifconfig command.
> 
> OK, that would be good.  On the single point of failure, losing a character
> here and there is less critical to me than losing the whole console system...
> On the other hand, if the protocol were robust enough to capture 512 nodes
> oopsing at once, that would be a plus :-)

I don't see why not.  However, as I have pointed out before, the network
is NEVER going to be a reliable way of capturing crash dumps -- there are
just too many things that can go wrong.

	-hpa

-- 
<hp...@tr...> at work, <hp...@zy...> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt