On 2011-10-09 12:23, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 10:49:57AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> As explained in the other replies: It is way more future-proof to use an >> interface for this which was designed for it (remote gdb) instead of >> artificially relaxing reasonable constraints of the migration mechanism >> plus having to follow that format with the post-processing tool. > > Any interface that isn't "get this information off my production > server *now*" so that I can get the server restarted, and send it to > an expert to analyse -- is a poor interface, whether it was designed > like that or not. Perhaps we don't have the right interface at all, > but remote gdb is not it.
Why is it not (for implementing core file write-out - I'm not proposing to drop that part of libvirt)? Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
