On 20080927 01:06:22, Daniel Eischen wrote:
>
> It's not security related, so I don't know whether it would be in a
> binary update. You should follow the procedure listed in the links
> above.
I'm not sure either. In every description I see of freebsd-update,
there's a claim that it installs "bi
On Sat, 27 Sep 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 20080926 21:43:48, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Sat, 27 Sep 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 20080926 16:43:37, Julian Elischer wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm trying to write a client for the jack audio connection kit
(http://jackaudi
On 20080926 21:43:48, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> On 20080926 16:43:37, Julian Elischer wrote:
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>> I'm trying to write a client for the jack audio connection kit
>>>> (h
On Sat, 27 Sep 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 20080926 16:43:37, Julian Elischer wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm trying to write a client for the jack audio connection kit
(http://jackaudio.org), have hit an apparent bug and am not sure
what revision of FreeBSD?
Ahem, shou
On 20080926 16:43:37, Julian Elischer wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I'm trying to write a client for the jack audio connection kit
>> (http://jackaudio.org), have hit an apparent bug and am not sure
>
> what revision of FreeBSD?
Ahem, should've mentioned t
Hello,
I was wondering what all these different priority related fields in a
thread structure meant. This is the 8.0 kernel tree.
Thanks
Ravi
Td_base_pri
Td_user_pri
Td_base_user_pri
Td_priority
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm trying to write a client for the jack audio connection kit
(http://jackaudio.org), have hit an apparent bug and am not sure
what revision of FreeBSD?
who's at fault.
This is the client:
--
#include
#include
jack_port_t *input_port;
jack_port_t *output_port;
David,
You beat me to it.
Danny, read the iperf man page:
-b, --bandwidth n[KM]
set target bandwidth to n bits/sec (default 1 Mbit/sec). This
setting requires UDP (-u).
The page needs updating, though. It should read "-b, --bandwidth
n[KMG]. It also does NOT
I'm trying to write a client for the jack audio connection kit
(http://jackaudio.org), have hit an apparent bug and am not sure
who's at fault.
This is the client:
--
#include
#include
jack_port_t *input_port;
jack_port_t *output_port;
jack_client_t *client;
int
main (void)
{
jack_status_t
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 04:35:17PM +0300, Danny Braniss wrote:
> I know, but I get about 1mgb, which seems somewhat low :-(
Since UDP has no way to know how fast to send, you need to tell iperf
how fast to send the packets. I think 1Mbps is the default speed.
David.
__
Hallo @list,
first please answer me directly, i be not on the list.
Let us say i have a Machine with 8 CPUs and a lot of RAM.
An i need a very high perfomance Storage for holding data.
My idea was to setup a raid1(0) with virtual disk images.
Created with mdconfig.
My idea was to create minimum
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 23:25:46 +0200
Jordi Espasa Clofent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I suppose it's a dumb (and crazy) question, but as post subject says:
> ¿Is it possible to regenerate the /usr/ports tree _from_ the installed
> ports?
Possibly. If the installed ports were built fr
:> -vfs.nfs.realign_test: 22141777
:> +vfs.nfs.realign_test: 498351
:>
:> -vfs.nfsrv.realign_test: 5005908
:> +vfs.nfsrv.realign_test: 0
:>
:> +vfs.nfsrv.commit_miss: 0
:> +vfs.nfsrv.commit_blks: 0
:>
:> changing them did nothing - or at least with respect to nfs t
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 12:27:08PM +0300, Danny Braniss wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 10:04:16AM +0300, Danny Braniss wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > There seems to be some serious degradation in performance.
> > > > Under 7.0 I get about 90 MB/s (on write), while, on the same machine
>
> the problem is probably that iscsi is deadlocked, so fetch
> ftp://ftp/users/danny/freebsd/iscsi-2.1.tar.gzs;/ftp/;/&.cs.huji.ac.il;
> >
ftp://ftp.cs.huji.ac.il/users/danny/freebsd/iscsi-2.1.tar.gz
> Danny,
>
> You typed the ftp wrong.
>
> hi Daniel,
oh well, it was before cof
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 04:35:17PM +0300, Danny Braniss wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 12:27:08PM +0300, Danny Braniss wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 10:04:16AM +0300, Danny Braniss wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > There seems to be some serious degradation in performance.
> > > > >
On Friday 26 September 2008 03:04:16 am Danny Braniss wrote:
> Hi,
> There seems to be some serious degradation in performance.
> Under 7.0 I get about 90 MB/s (on write), while, on the same machine
> under 7.1 it drops to 20!
> Any ideas?
>
> thanks,
> danny
Perhaps use nfsstat to se
On Friday 26 September 2008 05:20:14 am Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Jeff Wheelhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > http://software.wheelhouse.org/rptest.tar.bz2
>
> Thanks. I get similar results on head; vfs.lookup_shared actually seems
> to *reduce* performance by about 10% - 20%. I ran the t
> On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 10:04 +0300, Danny Braniss wrote:
> > Hi,
> > There seems to be some serious degradation in performance.
> > Under 7.0 I get about 90 MB/s (on write), while, on the same machine
> > under 7.1 it drops to 20!
> > Any ideas?
>
> The scheduler has been changed to ULE, and
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 12:27:08PM +0300, Danny Braniss wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 10:04:16AM +0300, Danny Braniss wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > There seems to be some serious degradation in performance.
> > > > Under 7.0 I get about 90 MB/s (on write), while, on the same machine
>
Danny Braniss escreveu:
I'm with a very strange problem in the FreeBSD 7.0R
I use the iscsi_initiator to mount two devices of a Dell MD3000i, the
file system is UFS.
The problem occurs when I make a copy of a great directory for inside of
the /data/email directory, passed some minutes of beginn
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 10:04 +0300, Danny Braniss wrote:
> Hi,
> There seems to be some serious degradation in performance.
> Under 7.0 I get about 90 MB/s (on write), while, on the same machine
> under 7.1 it drops to 20!
> Any ideas?
The scheduler has been changed to ULE, and NFS has histor
>There seems to be some serious degradation in performance.
> Under 7.0 I get about 90 MB/s (on write), while, on the same machine
> under 7.1 it drops to 20!
> Any ideas?
Can you compare performanc with tcp?
--
regards
Claus
When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom,
the gentler games
On 2008-Sep-26 12:22:55 +0200, Jordi Espasa Clofent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>1) I do the sync process with csup(1); next I go into
>/usr/src/sys/amd64/conf to edit the GENERIC file (I use a custimized
>kernels) and this file doesn't exists.
You might like to check your CVSup site against
http
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 12:22:55PM +0200, Jordi Espasa Clofent wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm traying to update a FreeBSD server box from 6.3p11 to 7.0 and I've
> found a rare problems.
>
> 1) I do the sync process with csup(1); next I go into
> /usr/src/sys/amd64/conf to edit the GENERIC file (I use
Hi all,
I'm traying to update a FreeBSD server box from 6.3p11 to 7.0 and I've
found a rare problems.
1) I do the sync process with csup(1); next I go into
/usr/src/sys/amd64/conf to edit the GENERIC file (I use a custimized
kernels) and this file doesn't exists. Mmmm I decide to repeat
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 12:27:08PM +0300, Danny Braniss wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 10:04:16AM +0300, Danny Braniss wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > There seems to be some serious degradation in performance.
> > > Under 7.0 I get about 90 MB/s (on write), while, on the same machine
> > > under 7.1 i
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 10:04:16AM +0300, Danny Braniss wrote:
> > Hi,
> > There seems to be some serious degradation in performance.
> > Under 7.0 I get about 90 MB/s (on write), while, on the same machine
> > under 7.1 it drops to 20!
> > Any ideas?
>
> 1) Network card driver changes,
coul
Jeff Wheelhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> http://software.wheelhouse.org/rptest.tar.bz2
Thanks. I get similar results on head; vfs.lookup_shared actually seems
to *reduce* performance by about 10% - 20%. I ran the test on both UFS
and ZFS; there is no significant difference.
DES
--
Dag-Erl
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 10:04:16AM +0300, Danny Braniss wrote:
> Hi,
> There seems to be some serious degradation in performance.
> Under 7.0 I get about 90 MB/s (on write), while, on the same machine
> under 7.1 it drops to 20!
> Any ideas?
1) Network card driver changes,
2) This could be
Hi,
There seems to be some serious degradation in performance.
Under 7.0 I get about 90 MB/s (on write), while, on the same machine
under 7.1 it drops to 20!
Any ideas?
thanks,
danny
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://l
31 matches
Mail list logo
