I would have them be completely divorced from the core O/S, such that core
utilities like pkgadd/pkgrm are not dependent on 3rd party software, such as
libopenssl.so, nor libgcc_s.so. Both /opt/sfw _and_ /usr/sfw should be
configurable to be not installed at all, if the person installing it so
Hi,
Here's OpenSolaris Weekly News #4. As always feedback, or content [from
the missing represented communities] welcome.
Glynn
==
John Cui posted [1] about a problem he had hit while trying to get st_ino
from stat using DTrace. Chris Gerhard replied [2] that it was because he
was trying to co
> What, are you kidding me? ;)
>
> http://lwn.net/Articles/173209/
>
> "Stable: Interfaces classified as stable will not break 'for at least
> two years', and probably quite a bit longer. The Linux system call
> interface is classified in this way"
>
> [see the ABI stability documentation section]
On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 12:16 +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 14:40 -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> > > ALl the more reason for those driver developers to abandon Linux and
> > > target OpenSolaris!
> >
> > Indeed! The question is what we can do to speed up the "conversion"?
Hi,
On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 14:40 -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> > ALl the more reason for those driver developers to abandon Linux and
> > target OpenSolaris!
>
> Indeed! The question is what we can do to speed up the "conversion"?
>
> I feel like not all of Linux kernel folks even understand the b
Hey,
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 17:19 -0800, Rich Teer wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, ken mays wrote:
>
> > Ref: http://dlc.sun.com/osol/jds/downloads/current/
> >
> > This is one of those great achievements I like seeing
> > within the community when even Sun engineers are
> > whipping out the latest
On 3/8/06, Karyn Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would something like the table I've just created at
> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/bug_reports/oss_bite_size/ help? I need to
Very nice view of what is out there.
> Please provide comments ideas about this and other ways we can help make
> th
There are various projects aiming to replace the BIOS. The following
URL provides a very nice summary:
http://www.kernelthread.com/publications/firmware/
The article is probably biased toward EFI, but I do think EFI has
the momentum and the most powerful backing (Intel and MS).
OpenBIOS is att
Steven Sim wrote:
Hello all;
I have always wondered why Sun's default value for maxphys is only
128Kbyte.
...
The fact that we still have kernel tunables for things like this makes me
want to check myself into the looney bin.
We could up them now, but how do we know the values are optimal
Holger Berger wrote:
I wasn't directly involved in the 64K prototype but only 64K and larger
were used for user applications, and the page_t was 64K in span
(PAGESIZE=65536). There may have been some 8K mappings in the kernel due
to OBP handing off translation lists with holes -- I don't remember
UNIX admin wrote:
... unfortunately some interviews with AMD staff
inidcate that there
will be quadcore CPUs from AMD available soon...
And where exactly will you get that motherboard that has 8 CPU sockets,
> to hit the 32-bit CPU number?
Getting even dual socket motherboards for dual cor
> ... unfortunately some interviews with AMD staff
> inidcate that there
> will be quadcore CPUs from AMD available soon...
And where exactly will you get that motherboard that has 8 CPU sockets, to hit
the 32-bit CPU number?
Getting even dual socket motherboards for dual core Opterons is difficu
On 3/9/06, Eric Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> The performance
> >> analysis was, as I recall, done mostly using US-III+.
> >
> > Did this include the concept that dwarfpages (8k) are no longer
> > available to both kernel and user land applications?
>
> I wasn't directly involved in the 64K
> Also, ACPI will always be compiled in statically, and
> is activated
> early
> on at boottime, so the number of CPUs is determined
> early on.
There's an idea: since the Solaris kernel consists of `unix` and `genunix`, why
can't the ACPI interpreter be built into the `unix` portion of the ker
Hello all;
I have always wondered why Sun's default value for maxphys is only 128Kbyte.
In these days of EMC and other fibre related storages, it seemingly does
not make sense.
This above is especially so when sd_max_xfer_size is set to 1 Mbyte by
default.
Shouldn't the above values all be
Andrei Dorofeev wrote:
Hi Roland,
I didn't try this on a laptop, but here are some numbers from a 2-way
AMD system running in 64-bit mode showing how much memory gets used by
the
kernel in each case.
NCPUmax_ncpus kernel
64 2 227MB
21 21 231MB -
>I didn't try this on a laptop, but here are some numbers from a 2-way
>AMD system running in 64-bit mode showing how much memory gets used by
>the
>kernel in each case.
>
>NCPUmax_ncpus kernel
>64 2 227MB
>21 21 231MB - stock Nevada bits
>64 3
17 matches
Mail list logo
