+ polls without issue, just
takes 2-3x longer (and still reasonable).
--
Mike Horwath, reachable via [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
rocessed:1107
11/11/2006 09:07:31 AM - SYSTEM STATS: Time:31.6741 Method:cmd.php Processes:8
Threads:N/A Hosts:56 HostsPerProcess:7 DataSources:2042 RRDsProcessed:1107
--
Mike Horwath, reachable via [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
freebsd-performance
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 07:49:47AM +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 10/24/06, Mike Horwath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >I haven't dug into it yet, but dovecot is using kqueue() on FreeBSD.
> >
> >http://dovecot.org/
>
> Its a pretty simplistic
is /dev/poll. Even libevent uses it pretty naively.
>
> Has anyone come across some network software which uses kqueue
> "differently" to the above ?
I haven't dug into it yet, but dovecot is using kqueue() on FreeBSD.
http://dovecot.org
Kip might be right, you could be a troll.
I am not on freebsd-stable.
And I do miss Mr. Dillon but I don't think he needs your support,
unless you are going to run DragonFly BSD - which I kind of doubt you
are since it isn't 64bit and does not fit your latest must be greated
mentality.
embrace new hardare/architectures, but that 32bit
operating systems and hardware isn't dead, for any of the reasons
given so far in this thread.
--
Mike Horwath, reachable via [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
draws about 8W, and it paid for itself in
> reduced power bills in a couple of months. this box is also
> probably not going to be "64bits and memory of 4GB or more" any time
> soon either
Shhh...don't use facts as examples to the contrary.
--
Mike Hor
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 12:45:42AM -0300, NOC Meganet wrote:
> On Saturday 14 October 2006 15:05, Mike Horwath wrote:
> > > I would say this preference is mostly set by beeing afraid of
> > > migration (lots of things can come up when migrating a production
> > > serv
are so completely wrong.
The 10K WD disks are fully usuable under FreeBSD 4.x.
In fact, I have more than 8 systems doing such, using 10K WD Raptor
drives and FreeBSD 4.11-STABLE.
Where do people come up with these statements?
--
Mike Horwath, reachable via
it
> with a SCSI thing. Most scsi implementations I know are much more
> scalable when there's a realworld load sucking it till death. Try it
> ;-)
Shhh...
> Have a great weekend y'all.
yahyah, I concur.
--
Mike Horwath, reachable via [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 01:13:27PM -0300, NOC Prowip wrote:
> On Saturday 14 October 2006 12:38, Mike Horwath 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 &
g SCSI anymore but Sata-II.
I disagree.
SATA (of any gen) still does not perform like SCSI. Let's just look
at spindle speed alone ignoring the other benefits of SCSI.
Now, I am not a lover of 32bit either, all of my new systems are amd64
(either Opteron or EM64T systems).
--
Mike Horwath,
gt; servers, 2 database servers and one large storage system using NFS mapped to
> ~1.2 terrabyte of SATA disks (4x Maxtor 500GB 7200 RPM disks w/RAID5
> config). Any suggestions?
Up the # of spindles? :)
--
Mike Horwath, reachable via [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t
to see if you're still happy afterwards.
I have many times on the perc3 and perc4 ones (adaptec and lsi) and
it works.
Did you have something to add or just making an offhanded comment
without anything to add?
--
Mike Horwath, reach
pm] 7 [~]:canary% uname -a
FreeBSD canary.octanews.net 5.4-STABLE FreeBSD 5.4-STABLE #0: Thu Apr 28
20:05:25 CDT 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/i386/compile/CANARY i386
1.5GB allocated for network?
Considering I am only seeing 177MB wired,
15 matches
Mail list logo
