On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 8:42 AM, matt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> nice! whats the status of your port? have an SGI indy (IP22) and would
>>> like
>>> to
>>> contribute if i find the time :-)
>>>
>>> please put it somewhere!
>>>
>>>
>>
>> http://iru.oitobits.net/src/9sgi/
>> good to know someon
nice! whats the status of your port? have an SGI indy (IP22) and would like
to
contribute if i find the time :-)
please put it somewhere!
http://iru.oitobits.net/src/9sgi/
good to know someone's interested besides me and Tim Weiss.
iru
Hi, good work
does that mean it works or does
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 5:38 AM, Kernel Panic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Iruata Souza wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 2:12 AM, Benjamin Huntsman
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Furthermore, does anyone out there run Plan 9 on non-x86 hardware
>>> anymore?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> only for the
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 05:55 -0700, ron minnich wrote:
> Looking at the Plan 9 exec path it's hard to see a reason that Plan 9
> could not do mmap, it just doesn't. But lots of code nowadays depends
> on mmap being there. Is there something I'm missing?
I've commented privately to Erik that this is
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:45 AM, erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i haven't found this to be the case.
it's not always the case.
>
> in a former life, one i'd rather forget, i did
> full text search.
>
> in order to return the full text, we had to go
> get the document. due to the ve
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:46 AM, erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But you make trips through the vm code on read/write in any event,
>> don't you? There was a pretty good paper comparing these paths once
>> and in the end it boiled down to "your cost will vary depending on how
>> you wr
Paweł Lasek wrote:
A much more important reason might be the fact that memory mapping of
files is only one function of mmap() and company. Basically when you
have mmap() and munmap() you can write your own allocator (which might
be very useful, especially for databases). I won't delve into using
> But you make trips through the vm code on read/write in any event,
> don't you? There was a pretty good paper comparing these paths once
> and in the end it boiled down to "your cost will vary depending on how
> you wrote the kernel" :-)
on plan 9? where?
- erik
> Well, depends. Non-mmap you have to do the storage management in the
> app. mmap, you're using the storage management in the kernel to figure
> out where the data goes, as well as all the LRU stuff to figure out
> what happens when you're running out of memory and you need to get rid
> of some of
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:07, Charles Forsyth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I could imagine that databases use mmap() havily
>
> it's a little mystery for me why they would do that since it's slower (or
> ought to be),
> because the trap path and fault recovery must do more work than syscall
> (
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 5:41 AM, erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> as you've pointed out, performance-wise it's not copying vs. nothing
> it's copying vs page faults and trips through the vm code.
> i would think playing vm games (as linus likes to say) would make
> scheduling on mp hard
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:07 AM, Charles Forsyth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I could imagine that databases use mmap() havily
>
> it's a little mystery for me why they would do that since it's slower
Well, depends. Non-mmap you have to do the storage management in the
app. mmap, you're using th
> > > I could imagine that databases use mmap() havily
> >
> > it's a little mystery for me why they would do that since it's slower (or
> > ought to be),
>
> slower compared to what? I'd expect the biggest slowdown for
> read()/write() be not the price of a syscall, but what you
> pay for copyi
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 22:09 -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 18:28 -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
> >> coming as no suprise, the pc port of plan 9
> >> does work just fine with 8 cores.
> >>
> >> mpls; cat /dev/sysstat
> >> 0 14271 2135013399
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 10:07 +0100, Charles Forsyth wrote:
> > I could imagine that databases use mmap() havily
>
> it's a little mystery for me why they would do that since it's slower (or
> ought to be),
slower compared to what? I'd expect the biggest slowdown for
read()/write() be not the pri
Charles Forsyth wrote:
I could imagine that databases use mmap() havily
it's a little mystery for me why they would do that since it's slower (or ought
to be),
because the trap path and fault recovery must do more work than syscall
(perhaps much more).
it's also difficult then to optimis
> I could imagine that databases use mmap() havily
it's a little mystery for me why they would do that since it's slower (or ought
to be),
because the trap path and fault recovery must do more work than syscall
(perhaps much more).
it's also difficult then to optimise the replacement strategy fo
Iruata Souza wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 2:12 AM, Benjamin Huntsman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Furthermore, does anyone out there run Plan 9 on non-x86 hardware anymore?
only for the fun of it, I'm slowly trying to port it to my SGI O2.
nice! whats the status of your port? have
Uriel wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Benjamin Huntsman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i can't agree with this label "research os" if you mean
to imply that it's not stable or somehow unfinished.
Not at all. Just meant that one doesn't run their company's Oracle database on
it.
> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 18:28 -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
>> coming as no suprise, the pc port of plan 9
>> does work just fine with 8 cores.
>>
>> mpls; cat /dev/sysstat
>> 0 14271 21350133991116 0
>> 0 0 99 0
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 2:12 AM, Benjamin Huntsman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Furthermore, does anyone out there run Plan 9 on non-x86 hardware anymore?
>
only for the fun of it, I'm slowly trying to port it to my SGI O2.
iru
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 18:28 -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
> coming as no suprise, the pc port of plan 9
> does work just fine with 8 cores.
>
> mpls; cat /dev/sysstat
> 0 14271 21350133991116 0
> 0 0 99 0
Looki
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Benjamin Huntsman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>i can't agree with this label "research os" if you mean
>>to imply that it's not stable or somehow unfinished.
>
> Not at all. Just meant that one doesn't run their company's Oracle database
> on it.
> Not because it'
>i can't agree with this label "research os" if you mean
>to imply that it's not stable or somehow unfinished.
Not at all. Just meant that one doesn't run their company's Oracle database on
it.
Not because it's not worthy of doing so, but such things just aren't compiled
for it.
>...you mean s
Uriel wrote:
You could always import /net from a 9grid node in a (more) free
country ;) (Maybe SA should start filtering 9P connections ;)
Peace
Glad to hear that device remoting has some practical applications :-)
Given the US Department of Homeland Insecurity, we may need that in the
US so
I have a means to circumvent the filters, but not at my current location.
Thankfully 9p flows as poorly as all the other protocols here in KSA,
but it still flows. I wonder sometimes if I am the only plan 9 user in
"The Kingdom"... Where most folks are accustomed to "five nines" of
availability, th
You could always import /net from a 9grid node in a (more) free
country ;) (Maybe SA should start filtering 9P connections ;)
Peace
uriel
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 2:13 PM, John Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Mr Forsyth,
>
> I tried to respond to your directly, but the mail bounced.
> Here
> if that doesn't compel you, running upas imap server for ~40 users
> with 1.3gb of inboxes might. since upas has the bad manners to load
> the entire mailbox, we're using about 90% of the 3.5gb bios will spare
> us in 32bit mode. i also watched it at 100% cpu for a solid hour
> yesterday.
Ther
> I'd like to ask a question, but before I do, feel I should say, I've
> been on this list long enough to understand that Plan 9 is a research
> vessel, not an OS that's targeted at commercial deployment...
i can't agree with this label "research os" if you mean
to imply that it's not stable or so
For me the URL works out to:
http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/research_projects.nsf/pages/hare.index.html
HARE! Awesome.
Anthony
> Some people would like to, but to my knowledge fourth edition hasn't
> been ported to any other platforms.
Plan 9 has always run on multiple architectures,
and the fourth edition is no different. ls /sys/src/9
will show you that there are ports to the Alpha PC (alphapc)
the HP iPaq (bitsy), and
Hi Mr Forsyth,
I tried to respond to your directly, but the mail bounced.
Here in Saudi Arabia tinyurl is blocked (by the govt). Is it possible
that you (or someone else) can expand the URL for me and send it to me
off-list?
Thanks
John Waters,
No relation to the director
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at
>Furthermore, does anyone out there run Plan 9 on non-x86 hardware anymore?
yes: http://tinyurl.com/5jc8u8, for instance
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Benjamin Huntsman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That being said, while huge scalability is certainly research-worthy, does
> anyone actually run anything on Plan 9 that needs or would otherwise benefit
> from 8+ CPUs and more than a few GB's of RAM?
The Blue gene
I'd like to ask a question, but before I do, feel I should say, I've been on
this list long enough to understand that Plan 9 is a research vessel, not an OS
that's targeted at commercial deployment...
That being said, while huge scalability is certainly research-worthy, does
anyone actually run
> Which hardware platform is that?
> -mlw
it's a generic xeon 5400-based machine.
- erik
add this one to the list:
http://9fans.net/archive/2003/12/182
Which hardware platform is that?
-mlw
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of erik quanstrom
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 3:29 PM
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Subject: [9fans] 8 cores
coming as no suprise, the pc port of plan 9 does work just fine with 8
>coming as no suprise, the pc port of plan 9
>does work just fine with 8 cores.
Just out of interest, what's the machine?
<>
coming as no suprise, the pc port of plan 9
does work just fine with 8 cores.
mpls; cat /dev/sysstat
0 14271 21350133991116 0
0 0 99 0
19116 1051772279 812 0
40 matches
Mail list logo
