Hi,
I sent this question to freebsd-questions but haven't got any answer,
yet. That is why I'm now trying here. Here is my question.
I have noticed that every time the perfmon device is closed it shuts
down the PMECs. While I can see this is appropriate for some
applications, it is not for mine.
Mon, May 21, 2001 at 18:46:57, imp (Warner Losh) wrote about "Re: sysctl to disable
reboot":
> : In addition, I prefer my approach here because it's a single,
> : known toggle that doesn't involve messing with other parts of the
> : system. I might just want to disable keyboard rebooting
> :
Hey there, I found a great retail site with all kinds of products. Home
decor, office decor, travel, outdoors, kitchen, etc... Take a look around
at http://www.merchandisewholesale.com just click on the images of the
product to enlarge it for a better view.
Sincerely,
John
To Un
Hi all,
We have a quite disapointing problem with a mylex 170 card, which causes
a system crash every 6 hours.
This card is installed in a VA Linux 2240 with 4 18GB drives, configured
in a single RAID 5 pack, running a FreeBSD 4.2-stable system.
We have to notice that this system ran during 4 mon
Wilko Bulte wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Is there any specific reason why one needs to be able to
> write a lock to the CVS repo when running 'make update'
> to get a freshly checked out source?
Yeah: you aren't running your CVS server in "pserver"
mode, and so are trying to do a lock, either in your
loca
On 22-May-01 Matt Dillon wrote:
>:Ok, then why not let the current shmexit() stay in exit1() as a hack to help
>:free memory, but add in a check in vmspace_free() as well to catch any race
>:conditions that may fall through the cracks? As long as we clear the shm
>:pointer in struct vmspace when
hey folks,
i am currently evaluating different styles of implementing documentation
for some multiplatform software stuff. first i though about html only
docs, but this is not sufficient. then i thought about tex docs but this
wont work out either.
the idea is to have a single 'master repo' sty
Jordan Hubbard([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2001.05.21 15:37:05 +:
> > c) A filesystem that will be fast in light of tens of thousands of
> >files in a single directory (maybe even hundreds of thousands)
>
> I think we can more than hold our own with UFS + soft updates. This
> is another area wher
"Albert D. Cahalan" wrote:
> It should be immediately obvious that ext2 is NOT the filesystem
> being proposed, async or not. For large directories, ext2 sucks
> as bad as UFS does. This is because ext2 is a UFS clone.
>
> The proposed filesystem is most likely Reiserfs. This is a true
> journal
As it says in sys/net/if.h, IFF_RUNNING means "resources allocated" and
IFF_UP means "interface is up". As I interpret this, the difference is that
IFF_RUNNING is set when the interface is initialised and indicates that it
is ready to be used. IFF_UP on the other hand is set by the user to indicat
On Mon, 21 May 2001, Benno Rice wrote:
> Please feel free to review, comment, etc.
>
> The snapshot is in the form of a diff against -CURRENT and a tar.gz file
> containing new files that would need to be committed. Both of these
> files are rooted in src/sys.
Nice! Reading through the changes,
[trimming CCs]
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 09:31:34AM -0400, Jason Andresen wrote:
> Er, I don't think ReiserFS is in the Linux kernel yet, although it is
> the default filesystem on some distros apparently. I think Linus has
> some reservations about the stability of the filesystem since it is
>
"Albert D. Cahalan" wrote:
>
> Gordon Tetlow writes:
> > On Mon, 21 May 2001, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> >> [Charles C. Figueire]
>
> >>> c) A filesystem that will be fast in light of tens of thousands of
> >>>files in a single directory (maybe even hundreds of thousands)
> >>
> >> I think we c
Jason Andresen wrote:
Oops, I fubbed up the linux at 6 files test, I'm rerunning it now,
but it will take a while to finish.
> Results:
> ufs+softupdates is a little slower than ext2fs+wc for low numbers of
> files, but scales better. I wish I had a Reiserfs partition to
> test with.
To
If memory serves me right, "Karsten W. Rohrbach" wrote:
> i am currently evaluating different styles of implementing documentation
> for some multiplatform software stuff. first i though about html only
> docs, but this is not sufficient. then i thought about tex docs but this
> wont work out eit
Jason Andresen wrote:
>
> Jason Andresen wrote:
>
> Oops, I fubbed up the linux at 6 files test, I'm rerunning it now,
> but it will take a while to finish.
>
> > Results:
> > ufs+softupdates is a little slower than ext2fs+wc for low numbers of
> > files, but scales better. I wish I had a
At 12:34 PM 5/22/2001 +0200, julien wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>We have a quite disapointing problem with a mylex 170 card, which causes
>a system crash every 6 hours.
>This card is installed in a VA Linux 2240 with 4 18GB drives, configured
>in a single RAID 5 pack, running a FreeBSD 4.2-stable system.
>W
According to Brian Somers:
> If pppctl is still working (ppp will talk to it), then it may be
> worth seeing what ``show physical'' and ``show timer'' say (is the
> link open, or is ppp waiting for something to happen via a timeout?).
Locked again with a pppctl attached.
show timer
-=-=-
IPCP
Hi,
In fact, I don't really believe in a hardware
problem like a false contact on a temp sensor.
I also noticed that a boot time, it stays
blocked at "waiting 15s for scsi device to settle" during arround 10 min what
would indicate that it's more an OS / driver problem.
In my previous mail,
] I work in an environment consisting of 300+ systems, all FreeBSD
] and Solaris, along with lots of EMC and F5 stuff. Our engineering division
] has been working on a dynamic content server and search engine for the
] past 2.5 years. They have consistently not met up to performance and
]
Jason Andresen writes:
> "Albert D. Cahalan" wrote:
>> It should be immediately obvious that ext2 is NOT the filesystem
>> being proposed, async or not. For large directories, ext2 sucks
>> as bad as UFS does. This is because ext2 is a UFS clone.
>>
>> The proposed filesystem is most likely Reise
> -Original Message-
> From: Terry Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 10:59 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: technical comparison
>
> ] I work in an environment consisting of 300+ systems, all FreeBSD
> ] and Solaris, along with lots of EMC and F5 s
"Albert D. Cahalan" wrote:
>
> Jason Andresen writes:
> > Er, I don't think ReiserFS is in the Linux kernel yet, although it is
> > the default filesystem on some distros apparently. I think Linus has
> > some reservations about the stability of the filesystem since it is
>
> It is in the kerne
I ran tests that I think are similar to what Jason ran on identically
configured FreeBSD and Linux/ReiserFS machines. ResierFS is much much
faster than UFS+softupdates on these tests.
Linux (2.2.14-5 + ReiserFS):
Time:
164 seconds total
97 seconds of transactions (103 per second)
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 12:40:11PM -0600, Matt Simerson wrote:
>
> When did that change? As of March which was the last time I had my grubby
> little hands all over a F5 BigIP box in our lab, it was NOT running FreeBSD.
> It runs a tweaked version of BSDI's kernel.
I believe it is Terry's infor
ReiserFS entered Linux kernels in the pre 2.4.1 series, and was 'official' with 2.4.1.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 04:00:31AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Is there any specific reason why one needs to be able to
> > write a lock to the CVS repo when running 'make update'
> > to get a freshly checked out source?
>
> Yeah: you aren't running your CVS server in "pserver"
> mode, and s
> > > Is there any specific reason why one needs to be able to
> > > write a lock to the CVS repo when running 'make update'
> > > to get a freshly checked out source?
> >
> > Yeah: you aren't running your CVS server in "pserver"
> > mode, and so are trying to do a lock, either in your
> > local
:
:
:On 22-May-01 Matt Dillon wrote:
:>:Ok, then why not let the current shmexit() stay in exit1() as a hack to help
:>:free memory, but add in a check in vmspace_free() as well to catch any race
:>:conditions that may fall through the cracks? As long as we clear the shm
:>:pointer in struct vms
On 22-May-01 Matt Dillon wrote:
>
>:
>:
>:On 22-May-01 Matt Dillon wrote:
>:>:Ok, then why not let the current shmexit() stay in exit1() as a hack to
>:>:help
>:>:free memory, but add in a check in vmspace_free() as well to catch any race
>:>:conditions that may fall through the cracks? As long
:>:
:>:John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
:>
:> Huh? It doesn't look like the same algorithm to me.
:
:In exit1() we attempt to free resources early if we can. If we lose the race,
:we still clean it up in vmspace_free() called from cpu_wait(). If you check
:t
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 02:15:18PM -0600, Nate Williams wrote:
> > > > Is there any specific reason why one needs to be able to
> > > > write a lock to the CVS repo when running 'make update'
> > > > to get a freshly checked out source?
> > >
> > > Yeah: you aren't running your CVS server in "pse
On 22-May-01 Matt Dillon wrote:
>:>:
>:>:John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
>:>
>:> Huh? It doesn't look like the same algorithm to me.
>:
>:In exit1() we attempt to free resources early if we can. If we lose the
>:race,
>:we still clean it up in vmspace_free(
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 10:27:27PM +0300, Nadav Eiron wrote:
> I ran tests that I think are similar to what Jason ran on identically
> configured FreeBSD and Linux/ReiserFS machines. ResierFS is much much
> faster than UFS+softupdates on these tests.
>
> Linux (2.2.14-5 + ReiserFS):
> Time:
>
:>
:> The whole point is to release resources as early as possible. Why would
:> you ever want to intentionally introduce a race that will 'sometimes' be
:> lost and thus cause a late resource release when you can just as easily
:> completely guarentee that the resource will be r
I didn't, but I believe Jason's numbers (for ext2 and ufs) also had write
caching only enabled on Linux.
On Tue, 22 May 2001, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 10:27:27PM +0300, Nadav Eiron wrote:
> > I ran tests that I think are similar to what Jason ran on identically
> > configur
Hi all,
I am new to writing device drivers...so please excuse
my ignorance.
I have a couple of questions regarding that:
1. "ioconf.c" contains struct config_resource and
config_device definitions for declarations in
"config" file. But I noticed that for some devices
e.g. device
Jason Andresen wrote:
>
> If only FreeBSD could boot from those funky M-Systems flash disks.
It can.
--
Daniel C. Sobral(8-DCS)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wow regex humor... I'm a geek
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
Jason Andresen wrote:
>
> Results:
> ufs+softupdates is a little slower than ext2fs+wc for low numbers of
> files, but scales better. I wish I had a Reiserfs partition to
> test with.
Ext2fs is a non-contender.
Note, though, that there is some very recent perfomance improvement on
very large d
Nadav Eiron wrote:
>
> I ran tests that I think are similar to what Jason ran on identically
> configured FreeBSD and Linux/ReiserFS machines. ResierFS is much much
> faster than UFS+softupdates on these tests.
>
> FreeBSD 4.3-RELEASE (ufs/softupdates):
4.3 does not have the dirpref changes.
(
Nadav Eiron wrote:
>
> I ran tests that I think are similar to what Jason ran on identically
> configured FreeBSD and Linux/ReiserFS machines. ResierFS is much much
> faster than UFS+softupdates on these tests.
For that matter, did you have vfs.vmiodirenable enabled?
--
Daniel C. Sobral
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 02:49:21PM -0400, Jason Andresen wrote:
> 6 files took ~15 minutes to create as is. I'm going to have to wait
> until tonight to run larger sets. 2.2.16 is what we have here.
> I'm still waiting to see how much faster ReiserFS is.
I'm willing to overnight your te
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 09:31:34AM -0400, Jason Andresen wrote:
> Er, I don't think ReiserFS is in the Linux kernel yet, although it is
> the default filesystem on some distros apparently.
ReiserFS, on my system anyway, started just losing files. I'd log in and
would notice some mp3 files or s
Shannon Hendrix wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 02:49:21PM -0400, Jason Andresen wrote:
>
> > 6 files took ~15 minutes to create as is. I'm going to have to wait
> > until tonight to run larger sets. 2.2.16 is what we have here.
> > I'm still waiting to see how much faster ReiserFS is.
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 09:20:32PM -0400, Shannon Hendrix wrote:
> I'm willing to overnight your test if you want. Do you have it packaged
> up to send?
I meant to say did you have the parameters you used saved. I'm assuming
now though, that you used the defaults for the program except for
tran
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 12:03:33PM -0400, Jason Andresen wrote:
> Here's the results I got from postmark, which seems to be the closest
> match to the original problem in the entire ports tree.
>
> Test setup:
> Two machines with the same make and model hardware, one running
> FreeBSD 4.0, the
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 10:55:09PM -0300, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> And just to get things worse... :-) the test must be made on the *same*
> slice. If you configure two different slices, the one on the outer
> tracks will be faster.
I cannot verify that with my drive, but my largest is 18GB so
Nadav Eiron wrote:
>
> I ran tests that I think are similar to what Jason ran on identically
> configured FreeBSD and Linux/ReiserFS machines. ResierFS is much much
> faster than UFS+softupdates on these tests.
[ ... ]
> Both tests were done with postmark-1.5, 6 files in
> 1 transaction
On Tue, 22 May 2001, Shannon Hendrix wrote:
:
:Point taken, but the "yank power, see who survives" test is illogical
:and dangerous thinking.
Depends on the enviornment. I've had lots of machines just lose power.
People will pull power cords out, the back-up generators won't start
before the ba
void wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 12:40:11PM -0600, Matt Simerson wrote:
> >
> > When did that change? As of March which was the last time
> > I had my grubby little hands all over a F5 BigIP box in our
> > lab, it was NOT running FreeBSD. It runs a tweaked version
> > of BSDI's kernel.
Shannon Hendrix writes:
> On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 12:03:33PM -0400, Jason Andresen wrote:
>> Here's the results I got from postmark, which seems to be the closest
>> match to the original problem in the entire ports tree.
>>
>> Test setup:
>> Two machines with the same make and model hardware,
Terry Lambert writes:
> I don't understand the inability to perform the trivial
> design engineering necessary to keep from needing to put
> 60,000 files in one directory.
>
> However, we can take it as a given that people who need
> to do this are incapable of doing computer science.
One could
Thus spake SJ ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Hi!
> 1. "ioconf.c" contains struct config_resource and
> config_device definitions for declarations in
> "config" file. But I noticed that for some devices
> e.g. device atadisk
> device atapicd
> ...
>
53 matches
Mail list logo
