Re: replace nvi with traditional vi?
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 05:58:45PM +0300, Alexander Polakov wrote: > I think we can safely replace nvi with traditional vi [1]. > vi supports UTF-8 and then we could use UTF-8 locale > systemwide. nvi is old and unmaintained, but supports > more configuration options, while vi is much simpler. > Anyway, if you want a really powerful text editor it > would be vim or emacs. > > Do you use feature nvi provides? Would you suffer if it's > replaced with a smaller vi? > > [1] http://ex-vi.sourceforge.net/ The above link says "multiple screens" are a fancy feature and not supported. Having a vi that can do split screen is essential AFAIC. Oh yeh, and BTW emacs sucks. -steve
Re: DP performance
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 10:15:55AM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote: > :What kind of "benefits" would be realized for > :systems being used primary as a router/bridge, > :given that its almost 100% kernel usage? > : > :DT > > Routing packets doesn't take much cpu unless you are running a gigabit > of actual bandwidth (or more). If you aren't doing anything else with > the machine then the cheapest AMD XP will do the job. > We've found the bottle neck for routers is CPU cycles neccessary to process NIC hardware interrupts. At least for OBSD. Interupt mitigation, and I suppose POLLING on Dragonfly may help but it isn't supported on all hardware AFAIK. Why kind of parallelism, as far as processing separate NIC hardware interupts on separate CPU's, can DragonFly currently support? -steve
