On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> Since this code must be enabled via a sysctl I feel it is safe to
> commit it to -current. I also intend to MFC it to -stable prior
> to the freeze (MFC after: 1 week). I believe that we can eventually
> enable the sysctl by default.
Well, I'm back from vacation. I see nobody in the general group has
commented much on my bandwidth delay product code. A couple of people
have corresponded with me in email and generally the response is
positive.
Since this code must be enabled via a sysctl I feel it is saf
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 07:14:24PM -0700, Sean Hamilton wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I just tried to use nanouptime, then microuptime, but was disappointed to
> find that a quick grep of /usr/lib revealed no libraries containing these
> symbols.
>
> Are they only available to the kernel. If so, how c
Greetings,
I just tried to use nanouptime, then microuptime, but was disappointed to
find that a quick grep of /usr/lib revealed no libraries containing these
symbols.
Are they only available to the kernel. If so, how can I get a reasonable
timer figure from user space?
thanks,
sh
To Unsubsc
I used to work at a company that does background investigations. You know, credit checks, court check, motor vehicle, drug tests etcThey have an extranet, the virtual ip is 63.121.77.80 which is routed through Local Diector to real ip's of 63.121.77.81 & 82, there are also 4 other sites. The in
Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> > > There is no much point in this patch, because it will increase size of
> > > struct ifreq, which means that no ioctl's from older apps will be accept
ed
> > > anyway. Therefore, there is no difference between those two, while my
> > > approach is obviously cleaner.
Hallo,
Who knows, why that device is so funny named?
from dmesg:
acd0: CD-RW <@A CD\^LB C\^E $81"0B> at ata1-master PIO4
^^^
It varies from stable to stable. Sometimes it's displayed correctly
as
acd0: CD-RW at ata1-master PIO4
--
Eugene Ossintsev
| OIC. Just trying to get more information out.
Still appreciated.
I just didn't want my joke to *totally* go to waste, pathetic though
it was. :-)
jm
--
My other computer is your Windows box.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body
On Fri, 2002-08-16 at 12:11, Jonathon McKitrick wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 07:39:35AM -0500, Larry Rosenman wrote:
> | On Fri, 2002-08-16 at 07:35, Jonathon McKitrick wrote:
> | > | > Why don't they just add an extra CPU to handle the GUI?? ;-)
> | > |
> | > | They did. 4.0.2 was the ES/M
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 07:39:35AM -0500, Larry Rosenman wrote:
| On Fri, 2002-08-16 at 07:35, Jonathon McKitrick wrote:
| > | > Why don't they just add an extra CPU to handle the GUI?? ;-)
| > |
| > | They did. 4.0.2 was the ES/MP (Enhanced Security/Multi Processing)
| >
| > I thought only NT
man clocks holds all the answers.
On Friday, August 16, 2002, at 11:21 AM, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> How do I do the following:
>
> 1) Find out how much time a program has currently consumed in computer
> time (something like what the time command outputs - but I want the
> program to
On Fri, 2002-08-16 at 10:21, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> How do I do the following:
>
> 1) Find out how much time a program has currently consumed in computer
> time (something like what the time command outputs - but I want the
> program to do find this out about itself);
'man 5 procfs
It looks like exactly what I want.
Thanks.
Sergey Lyubka wrote:
> Would getrusage() help ?
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 10:21:07AM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>
>>How do I do the following:
>>
>>1) Find out how much time a program has currently consumed in computer
>>time (somethin
Would getrusage() help ?
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 10:21:07AM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> How do I do the following:
>
> 1) Find out how much time a program has currently consumed in computer
> time (something like what the time command outputs - but I want the
> program to do find
How do I do the following:
1) Find out how much time a program has currently consumed in computer
time (something like what the time command outputs - but I want the
program to do find this out about itself);
2) Have a thread wait for a specified amount of computer time (not
actual time so
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
MS>>
MS>> On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
MS>>
MS>> MS>>
MS>> MS>> On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
MS>> MS>>
MS>> MS>> MS>BTW, I've just realised that we can easily avoid breaking application
MS>> MS>> MS>ABI by using currently unused
>
> On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
>
> MS>>
> MS>> On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> MS>>
> MS>> MS>BTW, I've just realised that we can easily avoid breaking application
> MS>> MS>ABI by using currently unused ifr_ifru.ifru_flags[2] (aka. ifr_prevflags)
> MS>> MS>for storing
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
MS>>
MS>> On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
MS>>
MS>> MS>BTW, I've just realised that we can easily avoid breaking application
MS>> MS>ABI by using currently unused ifr_ifru.ifru_flags[2] (aka. ifr_prevflags)
MS>> MS>for storing another 16 flags.
>
> On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
>
> MS>BTW, I've just realised that we can easily avoid breaking application
> MS>ABI by using currently unused ifr_ifru.ifru_flags[2] (aka. ifr_prevflags)
> MS>for storing another 16 flags. What do people think?
>
> The ifr_prevflags may be used by
On Fri, 2002-08-16 at 07:35, Jonathon McKitrick wrote:
> | > Why don't they just add an extra CPU to handle the GUI?? ;-)
> |
> | They did. 4.0.2 was the ES/MP (Enhanced Security/Multi Processing)
>
> I thought only NT-SMP did that. I *thought* I was being funny. :-)
SVR4.2 is a totally thre
Sorry, my last email was sent prematurely. I hit 'send' a bit too
soon.
| > Why don't they just add an extra CPU to handle the GUI?? ;-)
|
| They did. 4.0.2 was the ES/MP (Enhanced Security/Multi Processing)
I thought only NT did that. I was *trying* to be funny. :-)
| Not really. A lo
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
MS>BTW, I've just realised that we can easily avoid breaking application
MS>ABI by using currently unused ifr_ifru.ifru_flags[2] (aka. ifr_prevflags)
MS>for storing another 16 flags. What do people think?
The ifr_prevflags may be used by snmp daemons to
| > Why don't they just add an extra CPU to handle the GUI?? ;-)
|
| They did. 4.0.2 was the ES/MP (Enhanced Security/Multi Processing)
I thought only NT-SMP did that. I *thought* I was being funny. :-)
| Not really. A lot of them are rehashing things we've known
| for a long time, and UNI
Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> > > There is no much point in this patch, because it will increase size of
> > > struct ifreq, which means that no ioctl's from older apps will be accepted
> > > anyway. Therefore, there is no difference between those two, while my
> > > approach is obviously cleaner.
> >
>
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> >
> > > When implementing ability to switch interface into promisc mode using
> > > ifconfig(8) I've stumbled into the problem with already exhausted
> > > space in the `short if_flags' field in the if
Jonathon McKitrick wrote:
> | thrashing, but the result was that the X server had sufficiently
> | good interactive response to fullfill the "move mouse -> wiggle
> | cursor" requirement amd avoid cognitive dissonance on the part
> | of the user attached to the mouse. 8-).
>
> Why don't they jus
> > There is no much point in this patch, because it will increase size of
> > struct ifreq, which means that no ioctl's from older apps will be accepted
> > anyway. Therefore, there is no difference between those two, while my
> > approach is obviously cleaner.
>
> It does not increase size o
>
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
>
> > When implementing ability to switch interface into promisc mode using
> > ifconfig(8) I've stumbled into the problem with already exhausted
> > space in the `short if_flags' field in the ifnet structure. I need to
> > allocate one new flag, whi
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> >
> >Please take a look at this patch. It implement 1 more flag to if_flags
> > and ofcourse it increases size of this flag field by using if_ipending
> > which is unused.
>
> There is no much point in this patch, because it will increase size of
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 04:17:28AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
| Jonathon McKitrick wrote:
| > A couple of months ago, I saw a note on daemonnews that there was a
| > patch for a proportional share scheduler. When would this work better
| > than the existing priority feedback scheduler?
| >
| >
>
>Please take a look at this patch. It implement 1 more flag to if_flags
> and ofcourse it increases size of this flag field by using if_ipending
> which is unused.
There is no much point in this patch, because it will increase size of
struct ifreq, which means that no ioctl's from older a
Jonathon McKitrick wrote:
> A couple of months ago, I saw a note on daemonnews that there was a
> patch for a proportional share scheduler. When would this work better
> than the existing priority feedback scheduler?
>
> NOTE: Please CC me, as I am not currently subscribed. Thanks.
Basically,
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> When implementing ability to switch interface into promisc mode using
> ifconfig(8) I've stumbled into the problem with already exhausted
> space in the `short if_flags' field in the ifnet structure. I need to
> allocate one new flag, while we already h
A couple of months ago, I saw a note on daemonnews that there was a
patch for a proportional share scheduler. When would this work better
than the existing priority feedback scheduler?
NOTE: Please CC me, as I am not currently subscribed. Thanks.
jm
--
My other computer is your windows box.
Ops here is the patch (not enough sleep again :().
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Iasen Kostov wrote:
>Please take a look at this patch. It implement 1 more flag to if_flags
> and ofcourse it increases size of this flag field by using if_ipending
> which is unused.
>
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Julian E
Please take a look at this patch. It implement 1 more flag to if_flags
and ofcourse it increases size of this flag field by using if_ipending
which is unused.
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Julian Elischer wrote:
> you cannot break ABIs in 4.x
> in 5.x it will probably be ok until (say) 5.1 or somethin
Patrick Thomas wrote:
> Thank you for the very clear explanation. Does there exist a utility to
> immediately take a partition that has been growfs'd and "fix" it so that
> it does not experience this performance penalty ?
>
> That is, I am willing to sit and wait 10 minutes while some utility
>
Thank you for the very clear explanation. Does there exist a utility to
immediately take a partition that has been growfs'd and "fix" it so that
it does not experience this performance penalty ?
That is, I am willing to sit and wait 10 minutes while some utility
rearranges and reorganizes the u
38 matches
Mail list logo
