Re: Dbus issues

2015-12-03 Thread Mitt Green
Yes, it is there, thank you (: Mitt

Re: Invalid signature in GRUB

2015-12-03 Thread Mitt Green
Hello, >>> Did you delete the first 2 lines? I didn't have "exec tail -n +3 $0" and I removed that "echo EOF" frame, so now it looks like this: -- #!/bin/sh -e exec tail -n +3 $0 menuentry "NetBSD 7.0" { insmod ufs2 set root=(hd0,msdos2) knetbsd /netbsd --root=wd0a

Re: Dbus issues

2015-12-03 Thread Mitt Green
Good day, First of all, I try to get GNOME 2 to work solely for fun. Just because it's offered. I have a (precisely) working Xfce desktop on another installation. Second, I dislike dbus as much as you do. We usually compare it to systemd, because most of desktop packages depend on it, but it is

Re: Dbus issues

2015-12-03 Thread Robert Elz
Date:Thu, 03 Dec 2015 10:30:44 +0300 From:Mitt Green Message-ID: <20151203073044.5869651.9905.3...@yahoo.com> | Third, there is no dbus script, Look in /usr/pkg/share/examples/rc.d If you installed dbus from pkgsrc, the rc.d script will be

Re: NetBSD 6.1 NFS server performances

2015-12-03 Thread Emile `iMil' Heitor
On Thu, 3 Dec 2015, Emile `iMil' Heitor wrote: I know, right? And yes results are identical with differents bs values. I've tried a bazillion NFS options on the clients (TCP, UDP, {r,w}size from 8192 to 64k...), tried many OSes as a client, the NFS results are consistent, always between 20

Re: NetBSD 6.1 NFS server performances

2015-12-03 Thread Emile `iMil' Heitor
On Thu, 3 Dec 2015, Michael van Elst wrote: reading with rsize=64k: ~ 90MB/s reading with rsize=32k: ~ 60MB/s writing with wsize=64k: ~ 40MB/s writing with wsize=32k: ~ 30MB/s Well, I have similar results except I get better performances while reading/writing with {r,w}size=32k instead of 64,

Re: priocscan vs fcfs

2015-12-03 Thread Petar Bogdanovic
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:23:28PM +, Michael van Elst wrote: > > That's probably why setting the queues all to fcfs is the best > for you. Not as dramatic as Emile's numbers but significantly higher read throughput: # for i in disksort fcfs priocscan; do for j in wd0 wd1 raid0;

Re: priocscan vs fcfs

2015-12-03 Thread Thor Lancelot Simon
On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 07:43:10PM +0100, Petar Bogdanovic wrote: > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:23:28PM +, Michael van Elst wrote: > > > > That's probably why setting the queues all to fcfs is the best > > for you. > > Not as dramatic as Emile's numbers but significantly higher read >