--- Mark Linimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 02:01:08PM -0400,
> Michael Butler wrote:
> > For everyone's benefit then, please feel free
> to submit your patches
> > along with your technical analysis.
>
> I think his best bet is a fork, instead. Then
> he can tell all
uot; means much to anyone
other than yourself.
DT
--- Mike Horwath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:03:04AM -0700,
> Danial Thom wrote:
> > We come from Earth; we're just more informed.
> The
> > WD740ADFD's do NOT work on Freebsd 4.x. I&
--- Mark Linimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:57:32AM -0700,
> Danial Thom wrote:
> > Stating facts is not trolling.
>
> true, but ...
>
> > The fact that you may not want to hear it is
> your own problem [...]
> >
e fact that your
kernel design stinks, or its never going to get
fixed.
DT
--- Kip Macy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please do not feed the trolls.
>
> -Kip
>
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Danial Thom wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- Alexande
--- Mike Horwath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 01:30:02PM -0700,
> Danial Thom wrote:
> > You should try the new 10K WD drives (the
> ones that just came
> > out). They kick butt. Unfortunately, I'd
> have to use FreeBSD 6 to
> >
--- NOC Meganet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 14 October 2006 17:13, Danial Thom
> wrote:
> > The fact that a processor has 2 cores doesn't
> > mean you have to use them, just like a MB
> with 2
> > sockets doesn't need both to be used. If t
--- Mike Horwath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 11:13:24AM -0300, NOC
> Prowip wrote:
> > Hi, I am hooking in here without any
> intention to fire things up but
> > isn 't this discussion certainly useless? Not
> only 4.11 is gone but
> > also i386 is practically marked to
--- NOC Prowip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Linux 2.6 is not suitable for uniprocessor,
> nor
> > is FreeBSD 6. The difference is that Linux
> scales
> > with MP, and FreeBSD doesn't. So the case to
> keep
> > 4.x as an option is an easy one to make.
> >
>
>
> Hi, I am hooking in here wit
The fact that a processor has 2 cores doesn't
mean you have to use them, just like a MB with 2
sockets doesn't need both to be used. If the OS
is faster with 1 processor than 2, then you only
use one of the cores. The concept that you have
to fire up both of them just because they're
there is just
ocessor, nor
is FreeBSD 6. The difference is that Linux scales
with MP, and FreeBSD doesn't. So the case to keep
4.x as an option is an easy one to make.
DT
--- Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 01:34:36PM -0700,
> Danial Thom wrote:
> > Yeah
Yeah, bury your head in the sand as always.
Its been proven over and over. Robert Watson has
admitted many times that 6.x is not as fast as
4.x uniprocessor, but you guys still continue to
claim otherwise. Clowns following clowns to the
land of nowhere.
Its virtually impossible to build a threa
equest.
>
> I don't want to feed the trolls either, but
> sometimes performance is
> achieved because you take the time to read and
> don't just install the
> OS "as-is" and expect it to work well on all
> hardware. When
> configured properly, in my
--- Dan Lukes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Danial Thom wrote:
> > The right thing to do is to port the SATA
> support
> > and new NIC support back to 4.x and support
> both.
> > 4.x is far superior on a Uniprocessor system
> and
> > FreeBSD-5+ may
--- Alexander Leidinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Quoting Dan Lukes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Thu, 12
> Oct 2006 09:43:20 +0200):
>
> [moved from security@ to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > The main problem is - 6.x is still not
> competitive replacement for
> > 4.x. I'm NOT speaking about old
--- Hugo Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Today I decided to benchmark MySQL 5
> performance on FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE.
> This server is a Dual Xeon 2.8GHz, 4GB of RAM
> and 2x73GB SCSI disks that
> do 320MB/s
>
> For all the tests, I restarted mysqld prior to
> starting the test,
> waited for
--- Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006, Danial Thom wrote:
>
> > At some point you're going to have to figure
> out that there's a reason that
> > every time anyone other than you tests
> FreeBSD it completely pigs
---
You have some valid points, but they get lost in
your
overly abbrassive tone. Several of us have
watched
your behaviour on the DFly lists, and I dearly
hope that
it doesn't overflow to our lists. It would be a
shame
to loose your insight and input.
Scott
---
Well I only have a few
--- Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Scott asked me if I could take a look at the
> impact of changing HZ for some
> simple TCP performance tests. I ran the first
> couple, and got some results
> that were surprising, so I thought I'd post
> about them and ask people who are
> i
--- Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 12:57:38PM -0700,
> Danial Thom wrote:
>
> > Since everyone agrees that the load measuring
> > tools aren't all that accurate, what criteria
> was
> > used to determine that the cha
--- Scott Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Danial Thom wrote:
> >
> > --- Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Danial Thom wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Maybe someone can explain
--- Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Danial Thom wrote:
>
> >> Two types of measurements are taken: sampled
> ticks regarding whether the
> >> system as a while is in {user, nice, system,
> intr, idle}, and then sampling
--- Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Danial Thom wrote:
>
> > Maybe someone can explain this output. The
> top line shows 99.6%idle. Is it
> > just showing CPU 0s stats on the top line?
>
> Two types of measurements
--- Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Danial Thom wrote:
>
> >> I didn't answer it because I don't know what
> output cpustat provides. What
> >> output does cpustat provide on DragonflyBSD?
> >
> > Its a si
--- Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Danial Thom wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry if I missed it, but I don't believe
> anyone answered this question:
> >
> >> Lastly, is there a utility similar to
> cpustat in
> &g
I'm sorry if I missed it, but I don't believe
anyone answered this question:
>Lastly, is there a utility similar to cpustat in
>DragonflyBSD which shows the per-cpu usage
>stats?
I need to gauge the efficiency of SMP for a
particular application, and also have some way of
measuring the effects
--- Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Danial Thom wrote:
>
> > first, why is the default for HZ now 1000? It
> seems that 900 extra clock
> > interrupts aren't a performance enhancement.
>
> This is a design change that is
I'm just setting up to evaluate 6.1 for a
project, and before I tune I hoped to get some
feedback on why some things are the way they are.
first, why is the default for HZ now 1000? It
seems that 900 extra clock interrupts aren't a
performance enhancement.
Is there a reason that ITR isn't a tuna
27 matches
Mail list logo
