Re: Performance on Sparc Ultra 10

2003-06-19 Thread Andreas Tille
On 18 Jun 2003, Steve Pacenka wrote: 2.4.21: ehec2,496M,3316,98,13866,27,5968,13,2856,92,12546,13,123.9,1,16,261,97, ^ +,+++,13110,100,270,97,+,+++,1658,96 Some comparative bonnie++ results ... 2.4.21 from Debian, Ultra 10 333 CPU, 512M

Re: Performance on Sparc Ultra 10

2003-06-19 Thread Steve Pacenka
On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 03:48, Andreas Tille wrote: On 18 Jun 2003, Steve Pacenka wrote: 2.4.21: ehec2,496M,3316,98,13866,27,5968,13,2856,92,12546,13,123.9,1,16,261,97, ^ +,+++,13110,100,270,97,+,+++,1658,96 Some comparative bonnie++

Re: Performance on Sparc Ultra 10

2003-06-19 Thread Andreas Tille
On 19 Jun 2003, Steve Pacenka wrote: Data density difference on a track? From its name, this test would be writing a block much larger than the on-drive buffer and should be limited by the rate at which the drive can write to whole tracks on a platter, and seek between nearby tracks. More

errors with libc6-dev-sparc64 on testing

2003-06-19 Thread Chris Beggy
I'm having problems with libc6-dev-sparc64 on testing: dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of libc6-dev-sparc64: libc6-dev-sparc64 depends on libc6-sparc64 (= 2.3.1-16); however: Version of libc6-sparc64 on system is 2.2.5-14.3. dpkg: error processing libc6-dev-sparc64

Re: errors with libc6-dev-sparc64 on testing

2003-06-19 Thread Ben Collins
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 05:12:01PM -0400, Chris Beggy wrote: I'm having problems with libc6-dev-sparc64 on testing: dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of libc6-dev-sparc64: libc6-dev-sparc64 depends on libc6-sparc64 (= 2.3.1-16); however: Version of libc6-sparc64 on system