On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 03:22:19PM +, Robie Basak wrote:
> If -g is specified to ntpd, then it will allow any variance the first
> time it sets the time. After that, and always if -g was not specified,
> it will exit (thus stop syncing time) if the variance is greater than
> 1000 seconds. I don
If you don't mind me asking, what do you mean by 64k pages. If I could general
understanding if this term I can do some accurate research on it.
-Original Message-
From: "Dann Frazier"
Sent: 12/15/2014 7:36 PM
To: "ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com" ; "Ubuntu
Kernel Team"
Cc: "Adam Conr
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 05:36:25PM -0700, Dann Frazier wrote:
>
> There's the question of whether or not we would be penalizing the
> performance of other classes of workloads people want to run on arm64.
> If there are some representative tests we should be looking at, please
> let me know.
So,
We've measured significant performance improvements for several
benchmarks by using 64K pages (SPECint, sysbench mysql, and kernel
compiling)[*]. I'd therefore like to discuss whether or not we should
switch to 64K pages in vivid.
There's the question of whether or not we would be penalizing the
p
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 01:17:33PM -0500, D. Jared Dominguez wrote:
> Out of curiosity, why ntpd/ntpdate instead of chrony? Chrony is
> designed to work well on both mobile systems and servers. As I
> understand, it's also the default of current Fedora and RHEL 7.
Having chrony default on RHEL/Fed
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:59:24AM -0400, Seth Arnold wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 02:51:56PM +0100, Robie Basak wrote:
> Historically, ntpd would refuse to change the system time beyond a small
> amount, so ntpdate was run in the initscripts for ntpd to make sure that
> ntpd could keep things
