[ Date Index ]
[ Thread Index ]
[ <= Previous by date /
thread ]
[ Next by date /
thread => ]
Re: [LUG] Size of /proc/kcore
- To: list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [LUG] Size of /proc/kcore
- From: Dan Dart <dandart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 19:23:48 +0100
- Delivered-to: dclug@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=eG40VfuOIUa9Vlwfbu5tcYkzuFgo3ECpSlMtLjkLurc=; b=i2u6cTjVGOxWfHYD4fmkhuEGV4MAkHt7bkrxxGFt59Q0l1X8uV7GHDMsfZhQhYXkiL 1ShAiLHnPofnoyq/UAOAxrKmB+FyzGkPMKTa/ADGR2TU2FlaPnc2vtM+8bJB6oGvu9N9 yjaiZUz1fvSM/tO9b4Kf8FXlYsu2riNaVnokc=
> I haven't tried using gdb on it yet to see if being 128TB breaks gdb
"/proc/kcore": not in executable format: File format not recognised
Perhaps it's an extents-like thing. It doesn't ACTUALLY use that much
but it reserves it so it has to.
--
The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list
FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq
