On Thursday 30 January 2003 07:06 pm, Tim Kientzle wrote:
| Matthew Dillon wrote:
| > Your idea of 'sequential' access cache restriction only
| >
| > works if there is just one process doing the accessing.
|
| Not necessarily. I suspect that there is
| a strong tendency to access particular fil
On Thursday 30 January 2003 05:22 pm, Matthew Dillon wrote:
| Well, here's a counterpoint. Lets say you have an FTP
| server with 1G of ram full of, say, pirated CDs at 600MB a
| pop.
|
| Now lets say someone puts up a new madonna CD and suddenly
| you have thousands of peop
es.)
And . . . also to Terry, yes, I know that my proposal about
over-simplifies, but the point is that for sequential access you want
to go "gentle" on making the cache of other process' and earlier reads
go away.
On Monday 27 January 2003 12:44 am, Tim Kientzle wrote:
| Bria
On Sunday 26 January 2003 11:55 pm, Sean Hamilton wrote:
| - Original Message -
| From: "Tim Kientzle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|
| | Cycling through large data sets is not really that uncommon.
| | I do something like the following pretty regularly:
| | find /usr/src -type f | xargs grep
You can get a somewhat similar effect right now (that is, root being not
permitted to mess with your files) by using "cfs."
Ok, true, root can still destroy your files by using the underlying
"real" file system, but he can't view or manipulate them in their
plaintext form.
I must say that wh
On Monday 26 August 2002 12:00 pm, Lars Eggert wrote:
| Patrick Thomas wrote:
| > Now, when I repeat vmstat -i, all of these numbers (or rather, all
| > of the large numbers) increase _except_ for `rtc irq8`.
|
| interrupt total rate
| mux irq114851
On Sunday 25 August 2002 06:07 pm, Patrick Thomas wrote:
| > It's usually gone after a reboot. Haven't debugged it further since
| > I saw now other problems.
|
| Yes, but other times it is not manifesting, and it _starts_ after a
| reboot.
|
| Also, concerning solving the problem with a reboot, a
On Tuesday 20 August 2002 07:39 am, Mosko Bilekic wrote:
| Gentlemen, it's time to explain why FreeBSD is such a
| failure.
|
| In the following lines, David O'Brien explains why 5.0
| is such a POS...
:
| The other big problem that the FreeBSD project faces
| is that a lot of developers prefer t
On Wednesday 24 July 2002 01:11 pm, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
| Hello there...
| And pwd_parser is one, little set-uid-root for all of those applications.
| This is something like brigde between (now set-gid on "passwd" group)
| passwd/chpass/etc. and pwd_mkdb(8).
:
| I know that passwd/chpass a
On Wednesday 17 July 2002 01:27 pm, Terry Lambert wrote:
| Sean Hamilton wrote:
| > The fact that FreeBSD does not beep after it finishes shutting down has
| > costed me dozens of hours of reformatting inconsistent filesystems, and
| > probably all sorts of little bits of data loss which I'm just
On Saturday 13 July 2002 11:47 am, Ingo Oeser wrote:
| Hi,
|
| On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 11:59:51AM -0400, Brian T.Schellenberger wrote:
| > Besides, stack allocations are more efficient than heap allocations on
| > every architecture I know of other than the IBM mainframe.
| >
| > Of course, it's i
On Friday 12 July 2002 11:48 am, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
| Hi there,
|
| As I see, there are many spots in the FreeBSD userland sources where
| multi-kilobyte automatic variables (e.g., string buffers) are used.
| I've been taught that such variables would better be static or
| allocated on heap.
|
| So
On Monday 08 July 2002 09:30 pm, Chuck Robey wrote:
| Nowadays, what with the price of fast memory at such low levels, I'm
| buying more memory than I really need, just because it's *so* cheap, the
| price has gone up before, and it's possible (maybe likely) that next
| year's popular new app will
as it happens,
qsort declares the type to be void *, so it will take *any* pointer type.
Thus, no complaint from the compiler.
|
| Nicolas
|
| To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
--
Brian T.
on't see how we can do
anything about *that*.
Stable is, in fact, fairly stable. I mean, if you are going to track updates
in a day-by-day basis, you can scarcely expect perfect stability anyway; if
you want perfect stability, you go with releases and apply security patches.
--
Bri
seen unless they are deliberately being used to mean
something special, I prefer FreeBSD's semantics, which do something useful
with that information over other semantics which always discard that
information.)
--
Brian T. Schellenberger . . . . . . . [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work)
Brian, the m
viously-cited posix2
requirement.
|
| bogdan
|
|
|
|
|
| To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
--
Brian T. Schellenberger . . . . . . . [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work)
Brian, the man from Babble-On . . . .
patched (e.g. cp, mv).
| >
| > Can you point out how the behavior violates POSIX.2?
| >
| > Doc
|
| To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
--
Brian T. Schellenberger . . . . . . . [EM
2 12:34 am, Brian T.Schellenberger wrote:
| On Monday 18 March 2002 10:49 pm, David O'Brien wrote:
| | On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 09:44:07PM -0500, Brian T . Schellenberger wrote:
| | > What good will it do you if do boot it? FreeBSD doesn't support UFS in
| | > extended partitions anyway.
On Monday 18 March 2002 10:49 pm, David O'Brien wrote:
| On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 09:44:07PM -0500, Brian T . Schellenberger wrote:
| > What good will it do you if do boot it? FreeBSD doesn't support UFS in
| > extended partitions anyway.
|
| Yes it does. Why do you say it d
used 0x00 -->
| > | 0x82e5680 15632851527069 156355583 -unused 0x00 ad0>
| > |
| > | lsdev says:
| > |
| > | disk1s5:ext2fs
| > | disk1s7: Linux swap (shouldn't it be s6? s7 is ext2fs...)
| > |
| > | Thanks for any help/pointers..
| > |
| &
nters..
|
| Toto
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
--
Brian T. Schellenberger . . . . . . . [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work)
Brian, the man from Babble-On . . . . [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal)
browser I know that can handle Java
pages on FreeBSD.
Are there others?
If you mean the FreeBSD-native netscape 4.x; yes, it's perfectly silly to run
*that*.
|
| Ken
|
|
| To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
time and *interrupt* time seem to track as one might
expect for this issue, there still seems to be something *else* going on per
the mpg123 time and idle time.
Ref:
http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=13691+0+current/freebsd-hackers
|
| Kris
--
Brian T. Schellenberger . . . .
me
issues with -current, but he did some testing and there are issues with
-stable as well. Are those known issues, too?
|
| Kris
--
Brian T. Schellenberger . . . . . . . [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work)
Brian, the man from Babble-On . . . . [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal)
a 900MHz CPU, and I'm guessng he doesn't.
I also don't listen to MP3s much, but when I did they seemed to be less
taxing that CDs (presumaby due to the i/o) rather than more.
| --
|
| Martin
|
|
|
|
| To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| with "unsub
er way in favor of the proposed change in wording -- a 2:1
majority of the code votes FOR the proposed change.
(This is subject to minor error given that it's all based on greps and
statistics, but I did the analysis a few different ways using different
plausible regular expressions to determine
ed a number of other languages.
But the lack of same is hardly a big deal. It'll cost you just a few
keystrokes.
OTOH, I do rather like x += 1 -- I think it clarifies what's going on as
compared to x = x + 1 . . . .
--
Brian T. Schellenberger . . . . . . . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
other write partial blocks. I also do not read anything
| during the partial block write, and I think the disk controller should not
| do that either.
I guess this was settled pretty well by later mail while I was off-line but,
yes, that's exactly what I would suspect is happening.
--
Br
ne binary
| search, you've written them all.
True . . .
| If you understand functional decomposition, then you
| unsertand the most fundamental tenet of object oriented
| programming already.
I write in OO all the time, though I admit that I feel pretty feel to cheat
where it
say 8192 bytes. Now I have a user
> > >>>>>>>>> program writing each contiguously laid out block sequentially
> > >>>>>>>>> using /dev/daxxx interface. There are a lot of them, say 15000.
> > >>>>>>>>>
n case.
But it'll be easier for us all to explain away the results if you can tell us
what the results actually are :-)
>
> > Lars
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
--
Brian
gned.
C++ is a language which I really liked until I really started to learn about
it.
--
Brian T. Schellenberger . . . . . . . [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work)
Brian, the man from Babble-On . . . . [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal)
ME --> http://www.babbleon.
x27;t have to
change much of what you're doing, unless you're writing pretty "fast & loose"
C code now.
--
Brian T. Schellenberger . . . . . . . [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work)
Brian, the man from Babble-On . . . . [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal)
ww.hotmail.com
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
--
Brian T. Schellenberger . . . . . . . [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work)
Brian, the man from Babble-On . . . . [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal)
On Saturday 02 March 2002 09:41 am, Brian T. Schellenberger wrote:
> On Saturday 02 March 2002 06:57 am, Aleksander Rozman - Andy wrote:
> > Hi !
> >
> > I was wondering if there are any guidelines how to write code in FreeBSD.
> > I have taken a look at several
ording to the C standard and in principle invokes undefined
> behaviour. OTOH, AFAIK the trick does work on all existing compilers,
> so while it is not standard-conforming it is quite portable.
I can't even imagine how one *would* write a compiler where this would
fail--does any
no useful extra information,
so the structure is empty, but since there's a structure someplace that has
an instance of struct md_coredump, it must be declared. Since there's no
useful content, it is declared as being empty.
Seems pretty elegant to me.
If I'm off-base here, somebo
t; since
"extern" means "defined someplace else in the link," and if *every* file says
tha they are defined in some *other* file, well, then, they never get
defined--just declared.
THis is a basic "C" quesiton, not a "FreeBSD" question.
--
Brian
ime of FreeBSD 4.4 or something? I'm at a
loss . . . it was very reproducable and disabling the write cache fixed it.
And with softupdates there's enough of a performance boost that I haven't
felt terribly put out by having the cache disabled, either . . . but I can't
get the
oftupdates advantages more than justified the risks. 4.5 has been
> released. I already have burned CDs. I think it's too late.
>
> > (And what list ought I have been reading to have known about these
> > plans?)
>
> hackers and stable.
>
> R. Kevin Oberman, Network
41 matches
Mail list logo
