Running 1.4.4 here and net-snmp. Im getting lots of these errors:
Jun 1 13:01:29 h5n1 snmpd[14906]: auto_nlist failed on cnt at location 1
Jun 1 13:01:29 h5n1 snmpd[14906]: kvm_read(*, 1, 0x280f31e0, 164) = -1:
kvm_rea
d: Bad address
Jun 1 13:01:29 h5n1 snmpd[14906]: auto_nlist failed on cnt at
walt wrote:
Matthew Dillon wrote:
...but that physical cpu chip you plug into the board
can actually contain two cpu's instead of one if you are using a
multi-core cpu (and a multi-core capable MB, of course)...
To reconfirm: if I bought a mobo today (at Fry's, for example, just
b
On May 31, 2006, at 5:01 PM, Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
I can not agree with this. BSD malloc() (or better: free()) is
much more conservative, and lately our default even changed to
abort on double free()s. A lot of buggy software has double free()
s and I think glibc doesn't even c
On 31.05.2006, at 20:37, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Style 1:
time_t t*;
time(t);
My experience is that *BSD's malloc and pointer stuff is designed to
be as
safe as possible by default, and will try to fix and correct any common
mistakes you will make. The short answer is that BSD will figure out
> Hi compiler/OS gurus,
>
> Please consider this trivial fragment of c code which I've
> written in two different styles:
>
> Style 1:
> time_t t*;
> time(t);
>
> Style 2:
> time_t t;
> time(&t);
>
> My puzzle is this: on *BSD these two different styles work
> identically -- but on my linux boxes
:Hi compiler/OS gurus,
:
:Please consider this trivial fragment of c code which I've
:written in two different styles:
:
:Style 1:
:time_t t*;
:time(t);
:
:Style 2:
:time_t t;
:time(&t);
:
:My puzzle is this: on *BSD these two different styles work
:identically -- but on my linux boxes Style 1 pr
:Here's a question for Matt, will dual-core
:designed chips (as opposed to chips with 2
:independent cores on once chip) be used on an UP
:OS as a single core? Say if I wanted to use a
:dual-core chip on Freebsd 4.x in UP mode since
:SMP sucks wind? Or do the cores designed as
:dual-core with the
On Wed, May 31, 2006 11:50 am, Danial Thom wrote:
> --- Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Er. Well, if I were talking about today I would be talking about
>> today. I'm talking about the near-future, 2-3 years from now. It
>> would be the height of stupidity to have programming goals t
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 12:44:07PM -0700, walt wrote:
> Hi compiler/OS gurus,
>
> Please consider this trivial fragment of c code which I've
> written in two different styles:
>
> Style 1:
> time_t t*;
> time(t);
>
> Style 2:
> time_t t;
> time(&t);
>
> My puzzle is this: on *BSD these two dif
Hi compiler/OS gurus,
Please consider this trivial fragment of c code which I've
written in two different styles:
Style 1:
time_t t*;
time(t);
Style 2:
time_t t;
time(&t);
My puzzle is this: on *BSD these two different styles work
identically -- but on my linux boxes Style 1 produces a
run-tim
Danial Thom wrote:
Surely it makes sense to begin developing O/S
applications (which is what I need to do),
however I need an OS that is production ready,
even if its not as good as its going to be,
because I can't reasonably test the performance
of an application on an OS that can't handle
produ
--- "Kevin L. Kane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, 2-3 years tops, and there won't be
> any more single-core offerings
> > from AMD or Intel. Probably not even for
> laptops.
>
> This is really already happening, ALL of
> Apple's new latops are dual
> core only and the only single co
--- Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Er. Well, if I were talking about today I
> would be talking about today.
> I'm talking about the near-future, 2-3
> years from now. It would be the
> height of stupidity to have programming
> goals that only satisfy the
> needs o
13 matches
Mail list logo
