Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 11:27:19 +0200 (CEST) From: Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de> To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Add some more information in the ktrace(1)/kdump(1) output Message-ID: <200605160927.k4G9RJfv098231@lurza.secnetix.de> In-Reply-To: <20060515223221.GA39581@what-creek.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Birrell <jb@what-creek.com> wrote: > I have to say this: "Anything ktrace can do, DTrace can do better!". > > My DTrace project already has access to *ALL* syscall parameters with all the > extra DTrace whiz-bang stuff included. > [...] Sounds very exciting. Hope it'll be available soon. :-) Personally I haven't used ktrace in ages because of its various drawbacks (incomprehensible output format being just one of them). I've always use strace (from the ports collection) with great success. It decodes data from most syscalls in a human-readable way, has very flexible command line options for filtering various kinds of information, and you don't have to use a separate dump tool. I can't live without strace. (Of course, dtrace will be even better, once it is there.) Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. > Can the denizens of this group enlighten me about what the > advantages of Python are, versus Perl ? "python" is more likely to pass unharmed through your spelling checker than "perl". -- An unknown poster and Fredrik Lundh
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200605160927.k4G9RJfv098231>