Not to belabor the obvious, but yours isn't the only equipment rack
in the world. In *my* experience, once I've put 3-4 machines into
a rack, plus the necessary networking plumbing to make them into a
backbone, it's close enough to spaghetti to confuse the most
discerning gourmand.
Your racks, which I'm sure each contain 30 or 40 machines, may be
an neat and tidy as pins. Celebrate. But it's foolish to assume
that everyone else is as fortunate as you.
>Kim> It would be really nice to have a way to capture oopses, that
>Kim> isn't depending on a serialcable. That way we could send the oops
>Kim> of to kernellist and immediatly get on to the work of recreating
>Kim> a stable machine.
>
>You still have to do your work manually and pipe it through ksymoops
>anyway -
So what? On the recieving end, the little UDP reader will
pre-parse the panic packet into a form that's readable by ksymoops,
so when the dead carcass is brought back to live you can dredge a
symbol table off it and build a good bug report. It would be a
lot easier than dragging in serial plumbing for every machine that
might possibly fail.
>it seems to me like some people expect all this to be done
>for them for free.
Heavens, the nerve of some people, asking on the kernel mailing
list if the infrastructure exists to get bug reports out of
failing machines so that bugs can be reported.
____
david parsons \bi/ A ksymoops'ed panic is a lot more useful than
\/ "the system mysteriously crashed"
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/