On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 09:11:41PM +0200, Martin V??a wrote:
> Hi,
> I use two soundcards on my Freebsd5.1 box - Sb Live and SB AWE64, FreeBSD somehow
> figured out that
> Live is better than Awe and made it "primary" soundcard. The reason I have AWE still
> in computer, is
> it's amplyfing skill
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Michel TALON wrote:
> What is more interesting is to look at the actual benchmark results in
> http://bulk.fefe.de/scalability/
> in particular the section about mmap benchmarks, the only one where
> OpenBSD shines. However as soon as touching pages is benchmarked
> OpenBSD fa
Hi,
I use two soundcards on my Freebsd5.1 box - Sb Live and SB AWE64, FreeBSD somehow
figured out that
Live is better than Awe and made it "primary" soundcard. The reason I have AWE still
in computer, is
it's amplyfing skills /2x4W/ so I don't need aditional amplyfier. With Xmms it's fine,
I jus
Q wrote:
Good point, maybe I should have said "increasing" growth instead of
"linear" ;)
It looked linear to me, however the constant factor was much smaller.
In the real world, that is often good enough. The Linux 2.6 kernel
looks like it has a constant time algorithm.
--
\ |_ _|__ __|_ \
On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 01:27:40PM +0200, Michel TALON wrote:
> What is more interesting is to look at the actual benchmark results in
Take a look at the following paper:
Juan E. Navarro and Alan Cox. Mitosis: a high performance, scalable
virtual memory system. Technical report TTR01-378, CS De
> Yes, it would appear this is a legacy thing that existed in the original
> 1994 import of the BSD 4.4 Lite source. Both FreeBSD and NetBSD still
> use this technique, but OpenBSD changed to using Red-Black trees back in
> Feb 2002.
What is more interesting is to look at the actual benchmark res
6 matches
Mail list logo
