From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Sep  1 19:16:46 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 3080316A4BF; Mon,  1 Sep 2003 19:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from h190n1fls34o809.telia.com (h190n1fls34o809.telia.com
	[213.67.96.190])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 5149B43F3F; Mon,  1 Sep 2003 19:16:44 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from pawel.worach@telia.com)
Received: from telia.com (corona.sajd.net [192.168.1.20])
	h822Gff26282;	Tue, 2 Sep 2003 04:16:41 +0200 (MEST)
Message-ID: <3F53FD88.1050005@telia.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 04:16:40 +0200
From: Pawel Worach <pawel.worach@telia.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030829
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org>
References: <20030901165035.D58395@carver.gumbysoft.com>
	<3F53E2CA.9020101@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <3F53E2CA.9020101@freebsd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: swapon vs savecore dilemma
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 02:16:46 -0000

Scott Long wrote:

> Doug White wrote:
>
>> Hey folks,
>>
>> It looks like we may need to rethink the way swap is mounted at boot 
>> time
>> if we want crashdumps to work.
>>
>
> I question the wizdom of what you're describing.  If swap space needs to
> be made available for fsck to run, then what happens to the crashdump
> data that used to be on the swap partition?  Doing a swapon(8) means
> that nothing in the swap partition is reliable or consistent anymore.
>
> Scott
>
Yes, I have seen this too.
Sep  2 02:16:30 darkstar savecore: /dev/da0s1b: Operation not permitted
Sep  2 02:16:30 darkstar savecore: no dumps found

Is fsck really that memory heavy so that it needs swap?
Wouldn't fsck -> mount -> savecore -> swapon be a more appropriate order?

    - Pawel