This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

RE: reverse trace [was: vmware's replay framework and gdb]

> One of the reasons I was thinking of relational databases was that they can
> deal with the volume and put whatever the decide to cache into dis instead of
> memory (but maybe you were thinking disk space when you said memory anyway).

RAM, disk, does not matter -- size is enormous either case. 
> Besides compression of data stream there is also the possibility of only
> caching at certain sync points and tracing between sync points you have to
> regenerate the temp variables, etc.  Like I said, I was just brain storming
> here.  I had no idea how far things had gotten along the lines of
> Chronomancer/Chronicle.
> Regardless of how it eventually ends up working, it is going to either use a
> LOT of space, or a lot of CPU power to recreate.

The CPU power is actually easier to handle, especially if you have a few
snapshots to return to along the way.  We have looked at this hard, and the
execution to recreate is much easier to make scalable than the complete trace


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]