On 23/12/2011 20:23, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 2:38 AM, Vincent Hoffman wrote:
>> On 23/12/2011 02:56, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> There is a wiki page http://wiki.freebsd.org/SystemTuning which is
>> currently more or less tuning(7) with some annotations, the idea being
>> to
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 2:38 AM, Vincent Hoffman wrote:
> On 23/12/2011 02:56, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> On Dec 22, 2011, at 3:58 PM, Jeremy Chadwick
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:44:14AM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
On 12/21/11 19:41, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>
Hi,
I think this thread has gone far, far off the rails.
If you're able to provide some solid debugging or willing to put in
the effort to provide said solid debugging, then great. The easier you
can make it for someone to fix for you (whether they're a FreeBSD
committer or otherwise) the more li
Hi,
I think this thread has gone far, far off the rails.
If you're able to provide some solid debugging or willing to put in
the effort to provide said solid debugging, then great. The easier you
can make it for someone to fix for you (whether they're a FreeBSD
committer or otherwise) the more li
On 12/23/11 16:24, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 10:00:05AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 22, 2011 6:58:46 pm Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:44:14AM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
On 12/21/11 19:41, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Hi,
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 10:00:05AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Thursday, December 22, 2011 6:58:46 pm Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:44:14AM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
> > > On 12/21/11 19:41, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > while the discussion con
On 23.12.11 16:47, Martin Sugioarto wrote:
I thought that the "D" in FreeBSD stands for "distribution". Yes, it's
ok that it compiles with LLVM. Does it also run faster in benchmarks?
It does. From a language perspective. It is a "distribution", because at
the times BSD was developed, it wa
I have slightly reordered your email in my reply, in order to put the
most important item last.
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:01:33PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
> I'm still with the system, although I desperately need scientific grade
> compilers or GPGPU support.
Your use-case, while valid, is clear
On 12/23/11 15:47, Martin Sugioarto wrote:
> Am Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:18:03 +0200
> schrieb Daniel Kalchev :
>
>> The -RELEASE things is just a freeze (or, let's say tested freeze) of
>> the corresponding branch at some time. It is the code available and
>> tested at that time.
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
On Thursday, December 22, 2011 6:58:46 pm Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:44:14AM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
> > On 12/21/11 19:41, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > while the discussion continued here, some work started at some other
place. Now... in case someon
Am Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:18:03 +0200
schrieb Daniel Kalchev :
> The -RELEASE things is just a freeze (or, let's say tested freeze) of
> the corresponding branch at some time. It is the code available and
> tested at that time.
Hi Daniel,
obviously performance is not a quality aspect, only stabil
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 02:05:38 +0100
"O. Hartmann" wrote:
> Yes, and it is legitime to question that and bring pro and contra for
> that decission. But since "FreeBSD" is obviously a small club of
> people sitting like a duck on eggs (and, by the way, not their own
> genuine invented eggs, more or
On Fri Dec 23 11, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
>
>
> On 23.12.11 08:47, Martin Sugioarto wrote:
> >A further thing is that I cannot understand the people here sometimes.
> >I would like that the -RELEASE versions of FreeBSD perform well
> >without any further optimizations.
>
> The -RELEASE things is
On 23.12.11 12:48, O. Hartmann wrote:
Look at Steve Kargls problem. He investigated a SCHED_ULE problem in a
way that is far beyond enough! He gave tests, insights of his setup,
bad performance compared to SCHED_4BSD and what happend? We are still
stuck with this problem and more and more peo
On 12/23/11 10:07, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
>
>
> On 23.12.11 03:17, O. Hartmann wrote:
>> Or even look at the thread regarding to SCHED_ULE. Why has a user,
>> experiencing really worse performance with SCHED_ULE, in a nearly
>> scientific manner some engineer the fault? I'd expect the developer or
On 12/23/11 07:47, Martin Sugioarto wrote:
> Am Fri, 23 Dec 2011 02:17:00 +0100
> schrieb "O. Hartmann" :
>
>> Benchmarks also could lead developers to look into more details of the
>> weak points of their OS, if they're open for that. Therefore,
>> benchmarks are very useful. But not if any real
On 23.12.11 08:47, Martin Sugioarto wrote:
A further thing is that I cannot understand the people here sometimes.
I would like that the -RELEASE versions of FreeBSD perform well
without any further optimizations.
The -RELEASE things is just a freeze (or, let's say tested freeze) of
the corr
On 23.12.11 03:17, O. Hartmann wrote:
Or even look at the thread regarding to SCHED_ULE. Why has a user,
experiencing really worse performance with SCHED_ULE, in a nearly
scientific manner some engineer the fault? I'd expect the developer or
care-taking engineer taking care in a more user fri
Am Fri, 23 Dec 2011 02:17:00 +0100
schrieb "O. Hartmann" :
> Benchmarks also could lead developers to look into more details of the
> weak points of their OS, if they're open for that. Therefore,
> benchmarks are very useful. But not if any real fault of the OS is
> excused by a faulty becnhmarkin
On 23/12/2011 02:56, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Dec 22, 2011, at 3:58 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:44:14AM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
>>> On 12/21/11 19:41, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
Hi,
while the discussion continued here, some work started at some oth
20 matches
Mail list logo
