In message <66167.987742147@critter> Poul-Henning Kamp writes:
: Then the disk is probably running in PIO mode which thrashes your
: interrrupts.
That's likely right. This was a real low end machine, designed to be
smalffl and cheap.
: >The pentium systems were much better about this.
:
: Prob
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Boris Popov wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> > It needs more work, too. If you try to use an old fsck with the new kernel,
> > then the old fsck will clobber some new variables in the superblock. Then the
> > new kernel will panic later on instead of d
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Warner Losh writes:
>In message <60866.987710568@critter> Poul-Henning Kamp writes:
>: The BIOS misuse of SMM mode can give you jitter in the 1msec range
>: and there is not much you can do about it. I found out when I
>: clocked a motherboard with a 14.318 derived
In message <60866.987710568@critter> Poul-Henning Kamp writes:
: The BIOS misuse of SMM mode can give you jitter in the 1msec range
: and there is not much you can do about it. I found out when I
: clocked a motherboard with a 14.318 derived from a Rb, and timed
: 1Hz pulses derived from a Cs.
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, John Baldwin wrote:
> > I suspect that Jordan would shoot someone who suggested a MFC before
> > 4.3 is out.
>
> It needs more work, too. If you try to use an old fsck with the new kernel,
> then the old fsck will clobber some new variables in the superblock. Then the
> n
* Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010419 13:36] wrote:
> At 01:34 PM 04/19/2001, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote:
>
>
> > > Your point is moot, as you already have SMP support. The question is
> > > whether squeezing a few extra cycles out (SMPng) is worth making the OS
> > > significantly more complex, parti
On 20-Apr-01 Greg Lehey wrote:
> On Thursday, 19 April 2001 at 10:10:51 -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
>>
>> On 19-Apr-01 Dennis wrote:
>>> I understand there is a language thing, but I went out of my way to say
>>> that i wasnt saying that SMP shouldnt be supported. It already is, and its
>>> been d
The pfind() and zpfind() functions obtain a shared lock while accessing the
PID hash table and zombie process lists so that they will have a consistent
list to work with while searching for a process. However, since these
functions release the lock before returning, there is a race condition wher
On Thursday, 19 April 2001 at 10:10:51 -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> On 19-Apr-01 Dennis wrote:
>> I understand there is a language thing, but I went out of my way to say
>> that i wasnt saying that SMP shouldnt be supported. It already is, and its
>> been done very cleanly in a way that doesnt c
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Shankar Agarwal wrote:
> Hi All,
First off, you have sent mail to two different *BSD groups. While we have
a common history and share features back and forth over time, you really
should limit this message to the group from which you are using code.
> I have a doubt about t
On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 06:31:07PM -0700, Shankar Agarwal wrote:
> I have a doubt about the ifconfig file. when i am trying to configure or
> change ip address on the interface. The main calls setifaddr function
> which calls ioctl function with command as SIOCGIFADDR by the following
> lines
I t
At 01:34 PM 04/19/2001, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote:
> > Your point is moot, as you already have SMP support. The question is
> > whether squeezing a few extra cycles out (SMPng) is worth making the OS
> > significantly more complex, particularly when more computing power is
> > always on the way.
>
>
Posted this on freebsd_questions yesterday, but didn't yield any
responses, so I'll run the risk of being un-PC and post it here as well.
My question is simple: Could there be situations when the mkfifo
function might hang? I am currently developing a daemon which uses a
named pipe to communicat
You probably want to use the soft updates "snapshot" mechanism to take
a frozen snapshot of the filesystem state and then run your
checksumming/fingerprinting scan on that.
At that point it's obviously going to be divergent with the ongoing
state of the filesystem if that filesystem is active, bu
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Warner Losh writes:
>In message <60546.987709317@critter> Poul-Henning Kamp writes:
>: Use the pps driver and you get microsecond jitter with nanosecond
>: resolution.
>
>While I usually see microsecond jitter, I have seen it as high as a
>few milliseconds when the
On 19-Apr-01 Matt Dillon wrote:
> I've accepted the job of MFCing the dirpref stuff to -stable ... after
> the 4.3 release.
>
> If fsck is clobbering consistently we can probably make the kernel
> avoid a panic. I'll look at the issue carefully when I do the MFC.
>
>
In message <60546.987709317@critter> Poul-Henning Kamp writes:
: Use the pps driver and you get microsecond jitter with nanosecond
: resolution.
While I usually see microsecond jitter, I have seen it as high as a
few milliseconds when the interrupt load on the machine was high and
the cpu was slo
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Warner Losh writes:
>If you have only 1 source, then you can use the ack line of the
>parallel port and the ppi driver to get timestamped events. If you
>have more than one, then you might be able to wire a simple latch to
>the ACK line and sample of to 8 sources.
Michael Adler wrote:
>
> A number of our larger customers care about computation/cubic foot. The
> density of processors is important to them. SMP machines work well here.
>
> A future Alpha processor will be an SMT (symmetric multi threaded)
> machine. Above the lowest levels, it will look l
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> David Miller
writes:
: Anyone know of a way to get a low cost port of some kind to to simple
: state change detection? The specific purpose is to time external events
: which are triggered by breaking an LED light beam. Millisecond resolution
: would be fine.
:
:
I've accepted the job of MFCing the dirpref stuff to -stable ... after
the 4.3 release.
If fsck is clobbering consistently we can probably make the kernel
avoid a panic. I'll look at the issue carefully when I do the MFC.
-Matt
:O
> I didnt say they shouldnt support SMP, only that complicating the OS with
> highly SMP-specific code to make it slightly more efficient when 99% of
> users dont need it is a questionable endeavor.
Are you high ? What are you smoking ?
There are MANY people that use SMP, and for some of us, SM
On 19-Apr-01 Mike Bristow wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 08:57:37AM -0700, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote:
>> "Two aspects of the FFS filesystem in OpenBSD have received significant
>> improvements since 2.8, increasing performance dramatically. Thanks to art,
>> gluk, csapuntz, and a host of other devel
On 19-Apr-01 Dennis wrote:
> At 10:17 PM 04/18/2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Dennis wrote:
>>
>> > >You think Intel isn't going to market dual/quad ia64 machines?
>> >
>> > Yes, but who'll need them?
>>
>>If nobody needed them, what would be the point in SELLING
>>them ?
>>
>>I
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 12:30:37PM -0300, leal wrote:
> thanks,
> but what the point of this forum???
See:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO_8859-1/books/handbook/eresources.html
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
At 10:17 PM 04/18/2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Dennis wrote:
>
> > >You think Intel isn't going to market dual/quad ia64 machines?
> >
> > Yes, but who'll need them?
>
>If nobody needed them, what would be the point in SELLING
>them ?
>
>I know you don't trust our technical inst
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 11:31:52AM -0400, Paul Halliday wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I will try to make this quick. I am writting a little monitoring script
> in bash and I have run into a little
> stumbling block. Basically, one of the checks this program will perform
> is to take a fingerprint of the
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 08:57:37AM -0700, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote:
> "Two aspects of the FFS filesystem in OpenBSD have received significant
> improvements since 2.8, increasing performance dramatically. Thanks to art,
> gluk, csapuntz, and a host of other developers and testers, Soft Updates are
> n
"Two aspects of the FFS filesystem in OpenBSD have received significant
improvements since 2.8, increasing performance dramatically. Thanks to art,
gluk, csapuntz, and a host of other developers and testers, Soft Updates are
now much more stable than ever before. The second improvement, contribute
Troy Corbin wrote:
>
> will your monitoring script be publicly available?
>
> -troy
heh..
I doubt anyone would want it when it is complete. I have attached what I
have so far. Which isnt much.
you can see what it checks, I still need to add the check for running
processes. Anyw
thanks,
but what the point of this forum???
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
A number of our larger customers care about computation/cubic foot. The
density of processors is important to them. SMP machines work well here.
A future Alpha processor will be an SMT (symmetric multi threaded)
machine. Above the lowest levels, it will look like a multi-CPU
machine. The m
Hi.
I will try to make this quick. I am writting a little monitoring script
in bash and I have run into a little
stumbling block. Basically, one of the checks this program will perform
is to take a fingerprint of the entire filesystem.
For my needs this is only required every 24 hours as
> > Isn't time we kill the x86? It's been around too long. I'm not sure how
> > the Itanium looks, and I'm no Intel freak, but a change would be nice.
> > We should begin moving in the direction of RISC (or at least VLIW).
> >
> > There's a reason every other processor has a radically different
>
> I think a port to x86-64 is an excellent idea, but I also think that
> you're worrying about it too far in advance. As you say, the x86-64
> project is working on getting gcc ported, which is important chunk of
> work. As such, it's probably best to not worry about a FreeBSD port
> until after
> Second, it is this difference from x86 that I think is justification
> enough to focus on Itanium rather than x86-64.
> I'm not sure exactly how
> x86-64 works, but it seems to me that it's simply the standard x86
> architecture expanded to 64 bits.
With several enchancements, yes.
> Isn't ti
> Hi,
>
> If inside a syscall, what is the proper way to find the physical address of
> an arbitrary userland address of the current process ?
Probably something like VM_PAGE_TO_PHYS - but you'll need a vm_page_t
to use that. vm_page_list_find() looks promising, but I've never
used it :-/
leal wrote:
>
> i don't know if this list is for me... but... i invited myself...
> well, i'm brazilian and i don't speak english very well.. :O)
> i hope you understand me.
> i work with wireless, and i use slack and red hat. But now i wanna true OS.
> I found the solution, FreeBSD. I instal
Hi,
If inside a syscall, what is the proper way to find the physical address of
an arbitrary userland address of the current process ?
Thanks,
David Rufino
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
i don't know if this list is for me... but... i invited myself...
well, i'm brazilian and i don't speak english very well.. :O)
i hope you understand me.
i work with wireless, and i use slack and red hat. But now i wanna true OS.
I found the solution, FreeBSD. I installed it, and don't need co
On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 10:13:26PM -0400, Matthew Emmerton wrote:
> You need ISO8601 to support rolling on fixed dates (1st of the month, etc.)
>
> You need 'W-D-M' format to support rolling on a weekly/monthly/daily basis.
> This can't be done using ISO8601 because ISO uses fixed dates. (How wou
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 12:10:51PM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote:
> More to the point, the processors of the not-too-distant future will
> have multiple processors on the single die. Multiprocessors are here
> to stay.
That day will be here in Q4 2001. IBM is planning to launch a new system
based on
42 matches
Mail list logo
