On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 06:39:30PM -0700, Matt Graham wrote:
> FWIW, I did a short real-world test (copying 690M of data multiple times)
> with e1000 compiled in and as a module. Results:
>
> modulecompiled in
> 0m27.004s 0m27.172s
> 0m26.192s 0m26.089s
> 0m25.957s 0m26.055s
>
From: Darrin Chandler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 12:55:44PM -0700, der.hans wrote:
> >>> Does having a whole bunch of loaded modules cause a performance hit
> >>> because some module lookup table gets huge or for some other reason?
> See above. *IF* above is how it's done, then a
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 17:41 -0700, Craig White wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 15:17 -0700, JT Moree wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Craig White wrote:
> > > apt (at least apt on rpm based systems) was rendered moot because it
> > > does not have the ability to
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 15:17 -0700, JT Moree wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Craig White wrote:
> > apt (at least apt on rpm based systems) was rendered moot because it
> > does not have the ability to handle architectures.
>
> apt on rpm is a port from debian and does
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Craig White wrote:
> apt (at least apt on rpm based systems) was rendered moot because it
> does not have the ability to handle architectures.
apt on rpm is a port from debian and does things it's own way to deal
with rpm's deficiencies. So yes, apt
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 12:55:44PM -0700, der.hans wrote:
>> Surely we have some kernel folks that could be more authoritative,
>> but since you have had no answer in five hours, I stepped in.
>
> Thanks :).
I was hoping someone with good current knowledge would jump in, too. My
kernel internals k
Am 09. Nov, 2007 schwätzte Dazed_75 so:
On Nov 9, 2007 11:13 AM, der.hans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
moin moin,
There is a performance hit for using modules rather than having the
functionality built in to the kernel. Is that a recurring penalty once the
module has been loaded? In other words,
Am 03. Nov, 2007 schwätzte Justin Anthony so:
So I just had linux installed a week ago at the installfest and told
myself that I wouldn't ask any questions until a week later to give
myself the time to figure it out myself. Unfortunately, I couldn't
figure out these three things.
(BTW, I have a
From: "Jon M. Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cary Mabe wrote:
>> I'm looking forward to the day when I can contribute a couple
>> of answers instead of more questions.
This tends to take a while. Don't worry about it.
>>> Are the kernel modules needed for DRI loaded? Those are
>>> agpgart, inte
Cary Mabe wrote:
> Thank you again for the help. You guys are amazing. I'm looking forward to
> the day when I can contribute a couple of answers instead of more questions.
> In the post the other day, the person answering told me to check the kernel
> modules for dri. like below
>
>
> "Wha
Thank you again for the help. You guys are amazing. I'm looking forward to
the day when I can contribute a couple of answers instead of more questions.
In the post the other day, the person answering told me to check the kernel
modules for dri. like below
"What is the make and model of t
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 22:25 -0700, Kurt Granroth wrote:
> Craig White wrote:
> > As for OS's, I have gotten to appreciate Linux. I like the fact that the
> > repositories of packages is very deep on Fedora and that for minimal
> > effort, I seem to get just about everything that I want with yum
> >
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 08:14 -0700, JT Moree wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Charles Jones wrote:
> > Anyone want to talk about why they like yum versus apt or vice versa? :)
>
> Well since you ask. Yum is the biggest piece of crap that exists on
> Linux. To be fair
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Craig White wrote:
> As for OS's, I have gotten to appreciate Linux. I like the fact that the
> repositories of packages is very deep on Fedora and that for minimal
> effort, I seem to get just about everything that I want with yum
Glad to hear it. Y
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Charles Jones wrote:
> Anyone want to talk about why they like yum versus apt or vice versa? :)
Well since you ask. Yum is the biggest piece of crap that exists on
Linux. To be fair to yum it's partially because rpm has major
problems--but some of t
15 matches
Mail list logo
