Hi,
I had tried to obtain the source tree of my system (8.2 release) this afternoon
and feel miss about the command cvs.
I use the following.
cvs get -rRELENG_8_2 ports after several minutes only the CVS is in the
/usr/ports and nothing else. I search the handbook and the internet for the
On 12/12/2011 10:32, Man Chan wrote:
I had tried to obtain the source tree of my system (8.2 release) this
afternoon and feel miss about the command cvs.
I use the following.
cvs get -rRELENG_8_2 ports after several minutes only the CVS is in the
/usr/ports and nothing else. I search the
Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on idprio 31 so this isn't an
issue. And yes, there are cases where SCHED_ULE shows much better
performance then SCHED_4BSD. [...]
Do we have any proof at hand for such cases where SCHED_ULE performs
much better than SCHED_4BSD? Whenever the subject
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/12/2011 13:47, O. Hartmann wrote:
Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on idprio 31 so this isn't an
issue. And yes, there are cases where SCHED_ULE shows much better
performance then SCHED_4BSD. [...]
Do we have any proof at hand for
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 02:47:57PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on idprio 31 so this isn't an
issue. And yes, there are cases where SCHED_ULE shows much better
performance then SCHED_4BSD. [...]
Do we have any proof at hand for such cases where
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:13:00 +
Vincent Hoffman vi...@unsane.co.uk wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/12/2011 13:47, O. Hartmann wrote:
Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on idprio 31 so this isn't an
issue. And yes, there are cases where SCHED_ULE
Did you use -jX to build the world?
_
Von: Gary Jennejohn gljennj...@googlemail.com
Versendet am: Mon Dec 12 16:32:21 MEZ 2011
An: Vincent Hoffman vi...@unsane.co.uk
CC: O. Hartmann ohart...@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de, Current FreeBSD
Would it be possible to implement a mechanism that lets one change the
scheduler on the fly? Afaik Solaris can do that.
_
Von: Steve Kargl s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu
Versendet am: Mon Dec 12 16:51:59 MEZ 2011
An: O. Hartmann
On 12/12/2011 15:51, Steve Kargl wrote:
This comes up every 9 months or so, and must be approaching FAQ
status. In a HPC environment, I recommend 4BSD. Depending on the
workload, ULE can cause a severe increase in turn around time when
doing already long computations. If you have an MPI
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Gary Jennejohn
gljennj...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:13:00 +
Vincent Hoffman vi...@unsane.co.uk wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/12/2011 13:47, O. Hartmann wrote:
Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on
On Monday 12 December 2011 14:47:57 O. Hartmann wrote:
Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on idprio 31 so this isn't an
issue. And yes, there are cases where SCHED_ULE shows much better
performance then SCHED_4BSD. [...]
Do we have any proof at hand for such cases where SCHED_ULE
В Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:18:35 +
Bruce Cran br...@cran.org.uk пишет:
On 12/12/2011 15:51, Steve Kargl wrote:
This comes up every 9 months or so, and must be approaching FAQ
status. In a HPC environment, I recommend 4BSD. Depending on the
workload, ULE can cause a severe increase in turn
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:10:46 +0100
Lars Engels lars.eng...@0x20.net wrote:
Did you use -jX to build the world?
I'm top posting since Lars did.
It was buildkernel, not buildworld.
Yes, -j6.
_
Von: Gary Jennejohn gljennj...@googlemail.com
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:04:37 -0800
m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Gary Jennejohn
gljennj...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:13:00 +
Vincent Hoffman vi...@unsane.co.uk wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/12/2011
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:18:35PM +, Bruce Cran wrote:
On 12/12/2011 15:51, Steve Kargl wrote:
This comes up every 9 months or so, and must be approaching FAQ
status. In a HPC environment, I recommend 4BSD. Depending on the
workload, ULE can cause a severe increase in turn around time
On Monday, December 12, 2011 12:06:04 pm Steve Kargl wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:18:35PM +, Bruce Cran wrote:
On 12/12/2011 15:51, Steve Kargl wrote:
This comes up every 9 months or so, and must be approaching FAQ
status. In a HPC environment, I recommend 4BSD. Depending on the
On Sun, 2011-12-11 at 23:52:33 +0100, Dimitry Andric wrote:
On 2011-12-11 23:33, Ulrich Spörlein wrote:
long story short: telnet foo on stable/8 will first try connecting via
IPv6, then via IPv4 (foo has A and records). On stable/9 it's the
other way round.
This trips up my setup,
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 09:06:04AM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
Tuning kern.sched.preempt_thresh did not seem to help for
my workload. My code is a classic master-slave OpenMPI
application where the master runs on one node and all
cpu-bound slaves are sent to a second node. If I send
send
In article 4ee6295b.3020...@cran.org.uk, brucecran.org.uk writes:
This isn't something that can be fixed by tuning ULE? For example for
desktop applications kern.sched.preempt_thresh should be set to 224 from
its default.
Where do you get that idea? I've never seen any evidence for this
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 01:03:30PM -0600, Scott Lambert wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 09:06:04AM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
Tuning kern.sched.preempt_thresh did not seem to help for
my workload. My code is a classic master-slave OpenMPI
application where the master runs on one node and all
On 12/12/2011 19:23, Garrett Wollman wrote:
Where do you get that idea? I've never seen any evidence for this
proposition (although the claim is repeated often enough). What are
the specific circumstances that make this useful? Where did the
number come from?
It's just something I've heard
In article 4ee6595c.3080...@cran.org.uk, br...@cran.org.uk writes:
On 12/12/2011 19:23, Garrett Wollman wrote:
Where do you get that idea? I've never seen any evidence for this
proposition (although the claim is repeated often enough). What are
the specific circumstances that make this
On Sunday, December 11, 2011 7:22:38 pm Jan Mikkelsen wrote:
On 10/12/2011, at 3:03 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
On Friday, December 09, 2011 8:38:51 am Jan Mikkelsen wrote:
Hi,
Can rev 227562 be merged into 9.0?
[...]
It is probably too late to make 9.0 at this point as they've
TB --- 2011-12-12 20:58:39 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-stable.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-12-12 20:58:39 - starting RELENG_9 tinderbox run for
powerpc64/powerpc
TB --- 2011-12-12 20:58:39 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-12-12 20:58:55 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-12-12 20:58:55
On 12/12/11 18:06, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:18:35PM +, Bruce Cran wrote:
On 12/12/2011 15:51, Steve Kargl wrote:
This comes up every 9 months or so, and must be approaching FAQ
status. In a HPC environment, I recommend 4BSD. Depending on the
workload, ULE can cause
On 12/12/2011 23:48, O. Hartmann wrote:
Is the tuning of kern.sched.preempt_thresh and a proper method of
estimating its correct value for the intended to use workload
documented in the manpages, maybe tuning()? I find it hard to crawl a
lot of pros and cons of mailing lists for evaluating a
On 12/12/2011 05:47, O. Hartmann wrote:
Do we have any proof at hand for such cases where SCHED_ULE performs
much better than SCHED_4BSD?
I complained about poor interactive performance of ULE in a desktop
environment for years. I had numerous people try to help, including
Jeff, with various
On 12/12/11 19:29, Doug Barton wrote:
[...]
I switched to 4BSD, problem gone.
[...]
Ditto. If there's some common situation where the average user would
have a perceptibly better experience with ULE, let's go for it. But
when there's a plausible usage scenario in which ULE gives OVER AN
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 02:47:57PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on idprio 31 so this isn't an
issue. And yes, there are cases where SCHED_ULE shows much better
performance then SCHED_4BSD. [...]
Do we have any proof at hand for such cases where
29 matches
Mail list logo
