i remember a discussion about HAMMER support on one of the mailingslists which
sorta ended with the following statement:
"let's get zfs running properly before we even think about starting with
HAMMER."
cheers.
alex
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org maili
Alexander Best writes:
> i remember a discussion about HAMMER support on one of the mailingslists which
> sorta ended with the following statement:
>
> "let's get zfs running properly before we even think about starting with
> HAMMER."
Not a valid argument; regardless of the state of ZFS, one doe
> I honestly can't see why you would want to waste your time like this,
> but it's yours to waste I suppose. (Even a notorious packrat like me
> has gotten rid of hardware from that era.)
>
> mcl
Hmm, So that's you & jhb warning me off. Well I do have a ToDo list
that's a mile long, so maybe I'd
Dag-Erling Smørgrav schrieb am 2009-09-24:
> Alexander Best writes:
> > i remember a discussion about HAMMER support on one of the
> > mailingslists which
> > sorta ended with the following statement:
> > "let's get zfs running properly before we even think about starting
> > with
> > HAMMER."
>
Dear all,
I would like to remind you to submit your status reports as soon as
possible. Long time has passed since the last status reports were
released; and surely a lot has had happened since then.
Our developers are relaxed after DevSummit and EuroBSDCon in Cambridge,
which both were grea
On Thursday 24 September 2009 6:28:31 am Alexander Best wrote:
> i remember a discussion about HAMMER support on one of the
> mailingslists which sorta ended with the following statement:
>
> "let's get zfs running properly before we even think about starting
> with HAMMER."
>
> cheers.
> alex
> __
2009/9/24 Gonzalo Nemmi
> On Thursday 24 September 2009 6:28:31 am Alexander Best wrote:
> > i remember a discussion about HAMMER support on one of the
> > mailingslists which sorta ended with the following statement:
> >
> > "let's get zfs running properly before we even think about starting
> >
I think that one questions pops into the minds of a lot of people right
now: Why not just use DragonFly BSD?
It is a pretty decent system.
Why do you need it to be FreeBSD w/ Hammer and not DragonFly BSD?
Maybe there are some reasons, but I don't see it.
Could anybody point it out for me?
Th
Hi
2009/9/24 Leandro Quibem Magnabosco :
> I think that one questions pops into the minds of a lot of people right now:
> Why not just use DragonFly BSD?
>
> It is a pretty decent system.
> Why do you need it to be FreeBSD w/ Hammer and not DragonFly BSD?
exist very differences between FreeBS
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 01:35:21PM -0300, Leandro Quibem Magnabosco wrote:
> I think that one questions pops into the minds of a lot of people right
> now: Why not just use DragonFly BSD?
Feel free, but take it off-list, please.
mcl
___
freebsd-hacker
Mark Linimon escreveu:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 01:35:21PM -0300, Leandro Quibem Magnabosco wrote:
I think that one questions pops into the minds of a lot of people right
now: Why not just use DragonFly BSD?
Feel free, but take it off-list, please.
mcl
We (me and Luiz) did that a
It seems that FreeBSD has an ABI compatibility policy where major
versions remain ABI and API compatible throughout minor point versions.
That is to say that the kernel interfaces and libraries for (eg)
7-STABLE, 7.1-RELEASE, 7.2-RELEASE are not supposed to change.
Is this a policy of the project?
Stef Walter wrote:
It seems that FreeBSD has an ABI compatibility policy where major
versions remain ABI and API compatible throughout minor point versions.
That is to say that the kernel interfaces and libraries for (eg)
7-STABLE, 7.1-RELEASE, 7.2-RELEASE are not supposed to change.
Is this a p
Julian Elischer wrote:
I think a 386 can assume non-SMP in which case that can be simulated
just fine :-)
it also simplifies a lot of the other breakages..
#if (CPU == 80386) && defined(SMP)
#error "can't have smp on a 386"
#endif
Paging Terry Lambert...Terry Lambert, to the hackers lounge
Hi all,
looking at sys/sx.h I have some troubles understanding this comment:
* A note about memory barriers. Exclusive locks need to use the same
* memory barriers as mutexes: _acq when acquiring an exclusive lock
* and _rel when releasing an exclusive lock. On the other side,
* shared loc
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:00:04 -0700
Julian Elischer wrote:
> Stef Walter wrote:
> > It seems that FreeBSD has an ABI compatibility policy where major
> > versions remain ABI and API compatible throughout minor point
> > versions. That is to say that the kernel interfaces and libraries
> > for (eg)
Hi guys,
The configuration Altq on one interface VLAN is working on OpenBSD and
DragonFlyBSD, but FreeBSD no !
exists any patch for this ? or .. why no working ? any reason ?
thanx
--
Luiz Gustavo Costa (Powered by BSD)
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
mundoUnix - Consultoria
17 matches
Mail list logo