On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:19 PM, jb jb.1234a...@gmail.com wrote:
Fred Morcos fred.morcos at gmail.com writes:
..
The improvement effect can be
noticed on large inputs. These algorithms will most probably perform
quite
badly on small inputs.
I think your concern has been addressed
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:42 PM, jb jb.1234a...@gmail.com wrote:
Follow up comment.
It has been pointed out to me that there is Varnish software taking
advantage
of system VMM and swap space.
Well, there are cache-oblivious algorithms that perform as well, and so
they
make the above
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
Most probably all filesystems were used with defaults.
MAYBE softupdates, but not even sure for this. Compare this to linux which
is async-like. Comparing with UFS+async would be more fair.
Still -
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
what i would like to see too is how these systems compare on such test:
- run lots of heavy disk I/O tests, many different in the same time,
including ones doing many writes to different places.
- turn off
And I just want to add I'm a gay Marxist atheist and I represent the
accusations leveled in that other post...we have feelings too!!!
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
I'm quite new to FreeBSD too (RHEL/Fedora background), and am most
impressed with it so far.
rather huge difference.
Secondly (and probably stating the obvious), the handbook
The answer is:
1. gcc will still be available through the ports system.
2. The move to clang/llvm as a default compiler will reduce the amount
of GPL code in the base system, eventually reducing distribution
issues (especially for 3rd parties).
3. clang/llvm provides better error and warning
I am also a newcomer and I agree with Stephen. But I guess the only
way is to simply ignore those who make such statements. I don't see
much benefit in arguing or reasoning with them.
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Stephen Cook scli...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/19/2012 4:06 PM, Anonymous Remailer
Hello all,
I am new to FreeBSD, coming from a GNU/Linux background (most
comfortable with Archlinux). I compiled a series of questions I would
like to ask in different areas and categories. Should I send them all
in a single email message or should I split them by subject/topic into
different
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Jonathan McKeown j.mcke...@ru.ac.za wrote:
On Wednesday 20 June 2012 12:59:51 Stephen Cook wrote:
On 6/19/2012 4:06 PM, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
[snip childish invective]
I'm a relative newcomer. Are the FreeBSD mailing lists always this
flame-y?
You used -f which means rm will not complain if a file or directory
cannot be deleted (or does not exist in the first place).
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Damien Fleuriot m...@my.gd wrote:
I've stumbled upon this *so weird* behaviour.
# ls -la /var/tmp/stunnel/
ls: /var/tmp/stunnel/: No
assumed -f would only force removal, not modify the exit code.
No bug then, working as intended, all good.
Cheers
On 6/19/12 3:43 PM, Fred Morcos wrote:
You used -f which means rm will not complain if a file or directory
cannot be deleted (or does not exist in the first place).
On Tue, Jun 19
I would also guess that the base system is stuck with gcc ~4.1 due to
the GPLv3-ization of later gcc version. Is that correct?
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Michel Talon ta...@lpthe.jussieu.fr wrote:
David Brodbeck said:
Another way of looking at it is after 25 years of optimization GCC is
I don't see much fruit coming out of that conversation anymore.
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Anonymous Remailer (austria)
mixmas...@remailer.privacy.at wrote:
GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
but not to
14 matches
Mail list logo
