20.11.2012 23:03, Mike Jakubik wrote:
I don't like comparing Release Candidates without any details about
config,
but the fact that DF 3.2 is much better than DF 3.0 is interesting.
And they
are very close to performance of Scientific Linux 6.2.
Hey cool! And FreeBSD-9.1 is on there and doing w
On 2012-11-20 04:56 PM, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
Mike Jakubik wrote:
These numbers show very significant improvements. Any
possibility/interests in porting this scheduler to FreeBSD or this
too
much work? I know many have and still complain about our current
scheduler.
Just for the record.
Am 11/20/12 22:56, schrieb Miroslav Lachman:
> Mike Jakubik wrote:
>> On 2012-10-12 05:21 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>>> On 12 October 2012 11:10, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote:
I don't like comparing Release Candidates without any details about
config,
but the fact that DF
Mike Jakubik wrote:
On 2012-10-12 05:21 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 12 October 2012 11:10, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote:
I don't like comparing Release Candidates without any details about
config,
but the fact that DF 3.2 is much better than DF 3.0 is interesting.
And they
are very
Den 20/11/2012 kl. 22.03 skrev Mike Jakubik
:
> On 2012-10-12 05:21 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> On 12 October 2012 11:10, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote:
>>> I don't like comparing Release Candidates without any details about config,
>>> but the fact that DF 3.2 is much better than DF 3
On 2012-10-12 05:21 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 12 October 2012 11:10, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote:
I don't like comparing Release Candidates without any details about
config,
but the fact that DF 3.2 is much better than DF 3.0 is interesting.
And they
are very close to performanc
On 12 October 2012 11:10, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote:
> I don't like comparing Release Candidates without any details about config,
> but the fact that DF 3.2 is much better than DF 3.0 is interesting. And they
> are very close to performance of Scientific Linux 6.2.
Hey cool! And F
I don't like comparing Release Candidates without any details about
config, but the fact that DF 3.2 is much better than DF 3.0 is
interesting. And they are very close to performance of Scientific Linux 6.2.
http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/2012-October/017536.html
Graphs are avai
