On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 06:50:33PM -0500, Dieter BSD wrote:
> Many recent disks have a 4KiB sector size, so newfs's default
> 2KiB frag size seems suboptimal for these drives. Newfs's man
> page states: "The optimal block:fragment ratio is 8:1. Other
> ratios are possible, but are not recommended,
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 05:24:47PM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 02/06/2011 15:02 Ivan Voras said the following:
> > On 01/06/2011 13:11, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> >>
> >> Anyone knows of a benchmark/test that can measure/demonstrate difference
> >> in tlb
> >> shootdown performance (or its lack)?
>
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:33:37PM +0100, Martin Matuska wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> we have performed a benchmark of the perl binary compiled with base gcc,
> ports gcc and ports clang using the perlbench benchmark suite.
> Our benchmark was performed solely on amd64 with 10 different processors
>
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 11:50:49AM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 19/11/2010 11:46 Bruce Cran said the following:
> > [removed current@ and stable@ from the Cc list]
> >
> > On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 15:41:29 +1100
> > Andrew Reilly wrote:
> >
> >> On Linux. Have you ever seen those sorts of UI prob
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 03:56:02PM +0200, Andre Albsmeier wrote:
> On Tue, 22-Apr-2008 at 18:34:30 +0200, Andre Albsmeier wrote:
> > On Tue, 22-Apr-2008 at 14:54:07 +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:31:45PM +0200, Andre Albsmeier wrote:
> > &g
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 07:20:31PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
> Kostik Belousov wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 02:08:18PM +0200, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >>Kostik Belousov wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:31:45PM +0200, Andre Albsmeier wrote:
> >>
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:31:45PM +0200, Andre Albsmeier wrote:
> On Thu, 21-Feb-2008 at 14:13:22 +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 04:20:04AM -0700, Brett Bump wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> > >
&
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 02:08:18PM +0200, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Kostik Belousov wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:31:45PM +0200, Andre Albsmeier wrote:
> >>On Thu, 21-Feb-2008 at 14:13:22 +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> >>>On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 04:20:04AM -07
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 04:20:04AM -0700, Brett Bump wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Kostik Belousov wrote:
>
> > I cannot reproduce it locally. With patch applied, it compiles both
> > GENERIC and GENERIC with options QUOTA added just fine.
> >
> >
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 03:02:44PM -0700, Brett Bump wrote:
>
> Oops!
>
> ../../../ufs/ufs/ufs_quota.c: In function `chkdq':
> ../../../ufs/ufs/ufs_quota.c:168: error: `do_check' undeclared (first use in
> this function)
> ../../../ufs/ufs/ufs_quota.c:168: error: (Each undeclared identifier is
returned 0, but vnode was not really locked.
Although claiming that kernel code cannot have such bug is too optimistic,
I would first make sure that:
1. You checked the memory of the machine.
2. Your kernel is built from pristine sources.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From:
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 11:44:15AM -0400, Andrew Edwards wrote:
> I've upgraded to 6-stable, added the kernel options as per the kernel
> handbook. After about 5 hours of they system in a deadlock it panic'd.
> Here's the backtrace, and show pcpu, show allpcpu, show locks, show
> alllocks, show l
12 matches
Mail list logo
