On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 12/13/11 7:49 PM, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
>
> which brings up teh possibility of 1st class ports.. which are kept more as
> part of the system..
> (sorry for sounding like a broken record..)
*jumps back into the fray*
If it's som
On 12/13/11 7:49 PM, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
Hi,
Reference:
From: Doug Barton
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:29:02 -0800
Message-id: <4ee7c39e.6040...@freebsd.org>
Doug Barton wrote:
On 12/11/2011 06:14, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
On 12/02/2011 04:35, Adria
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote:
>
> A very late addition to this: I got Subversion 1.7 to work properly over
> NFSv3, by making sure rpc.lockd runs on both server and client.
>
> E.g, set rpc_lockd_enable to YES in rc.conf; this is off by default,
> even if you have nfs_cli
Hi,
Reference:
> From: Doug Barton
> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:29:02 -0800
> Message-id: <4ee7c39e.6040...@freebsd.org>
Doug Barton wrote:
> On 12/11/2011 06:14, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> > Doug Barton wrote:
> >> On 12/02/2011 04:35, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> >>> I think you're
Hi Selasky,
I think XHCI_PS_PP is wrong.
- #define XHCI_PS_PP 0x0100 /* RW - port power */
+ #define XHCI_PS_PP 0x0200 /* RW - port power */
Could you check it?
Best regards,
Kohji Okuno
___
freebsd-current
John De wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> I have a 9-prerelease system where I've been testing nfs/zfs. The
> system has been working quite well until moving the server to a
> multihomed
> configuration.
>
> Given the following:
>
> nfsd: master (nfsd)
> nfsd: server (nfsd)
> /usr/sbin/rpcbind -h 10.24.6.3
В Tue, 13 Dec 2011 16:01:56 -0800
m...@freebsd.org пишет:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Ivan Klymenko wrote:
> > В Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:04:42 +0100
> > Jilles Tjoelker пишет:
> >
> >> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:40:48AM +0200, Ivan Klymenko wrote:
> >> > If the algorithm ULE does not contain
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Ivan Klymenko wrote:
> В Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:04:42 +0100
> Jilles Tjoelker пишет:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:40:48AM +0200, Ivan Klymenko wrote:
>> > If the algorithm ULE does not contain problems - it means the
>> > problem has Core2Duo, or in a piece of cod
В Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:02:15 +
Marcus Reid пишет:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:29:14PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> > On 12/12/2011 05:47, O. Hartmann wrote:
> > > Do we have any proof at hand for such cases where SCHED_ULE
> > > performs much better than SCHED_4BSD?
> >
> > I complained about
В Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:04:42 +0100
Jilles Tjoelker пишет:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:40:48AM +0200, Ivan Klymenko wrote:
> > If the algorithm ULE does not contain problems - it means the
> > problem has Core2Duo, or in a piece of code that uses the ULE
> > scheduler. I already wrote in a mailing
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:29:14PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 12/12/2011 05:47, O. Hartmann wrote:
> > Do we have any proof at hand for such cases where SCHED_ULE performs
> > much better than SCHED_4BSD?
>
> I complained about poor interactive performance of ULE in a desktop
> environment for
On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 07:53 -0800, Rick Macklem wrote:
> Dimitry Andric wrote:
> > On 2011-11-23 19:26, Sean Bruno wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 09:58 -0800, Rick Macklem wrote:
> > >> I don't know if Dimitry tried this, but you could also try the
> > >> "nolockd" option, so that byte range lo
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:40:48AM +0200, Ivan Klymenko wrote:
> If the algorithm ULE does not contain problems - it means the problem
> has Core2Duo, or in a piece of code that uses the ULE scheduler.
> I already wrote in a mailing list that specifically in my case (Core2Duo)
> partially helps the
On 12/13/2011 13:31, Malin Randstrom wrote:
> stop sending me spam mail ... you never stop despite me having unsubscribeb
> several times. stop this!
If you had actually unsubscribed, the mail would have stopped. :)
You can see the instructions you need to follow below.
> ___
On 12/11/2011 06:14, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 12/02/2011 04:35, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>>> I think you're missing the point a little.
>>>
>>> The point is, you have to keep in mind how comfortable people feel
>>> about things, and progress sometimes makes people uncomfortable
On 12/13/2011 10:54 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
>
> I have given the WHY in previous discussions of ULE, based
> on what you call legacy benchmarks. I have not seen any
> commit to sched_ule.c that would lead me to believe that
> the performance issues with ULE and cpu-bound numerical
> codes have bee
Hi all,
I just discovered after upgrading the portsnap buildbox from 8.2 to 9.0-rc3 that
# mount -u /path/containing/a/symlink
now fails with 'not currently mounted'. Can anyone tell me if this change was
deliberate?
--
Colin Percival
Security Officer, FreeBSD | freebsd.org | The power to serve
Hello
I'm using the 9rc3 memstick img file to do an install on a Samsung Chronos
7, brand new.
The install booted from the usb and answered defaults for all the install
questions. Even went to the shell with no problem. When it got to the end of
the install and asked to reboot, I clicked ok. Pul
Helloat the suggestion of Bjoern i'm using this forum to help resolve and
test this issue.
I'm using the 9rc3 memstick img file to do an install on a Samsung Chronos
7, brand new.
The install booted from the usb and answered defaults for all the install
questions. Even went to the shell with no
on 13/12/2011 19:22 Julien Laffaye said the following:
> On 12/13/2011 06:16 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> on 30/11/2011 22:32 Julien Laffaye said the following:
>>> [1] : https://github.com/pkgng/pkgng/issues
>>> [2] : https://github.com/pkgng/pkgng
>>> [3] : http://wiki.freebsd.org/pkgng
>>> [4] : h
on 11/12/2011 23:45 Andriy Gapon said the following:
>
> There are a few cases when the kernel needs to interact with a user via
> syscons.
> This is the cases where the kernel not only spews some output but also expects
> some input. Some examples are:
> - asking for a root filesystem specifica
On 12/13/2011 06:16 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 30/11/2011 22:32 Julien Laffaye said the following:
[1] : https://github.com/pkgng/pkgng/issues
[2] : https://github.com/pkgng/pkgng
[3] : http://wiki.freebsd.org/pkgng
[4] : http://people.freebsd.org/~bapt/pkgng-bsdcan2011.pdf
[5] :
http://wiki.fre
on 30/11/2011 22:32 Julien Laffaye said the following:
> [1] : https://github.com/pkgng/pkgng/issues
> [2] : https://github.com/pkgng/pkgng
> [3] : http://wiki.freebsd.org/pkgng
> [4] : http://people.freebsd.org/~bapt/pkgng-bsdcan2011.pdf
> [5] :
> http://wiki.freebsd.org/201110DevSummit/Ports?acti
csup
make buildworld
make kernel
boot single
root mount waiting for: usbus4
uhub4: 8 ports with 8 removable, self powered
Trying to mount root from ufs:/dev/mirror/boota [rw]...
mountroot: waiting for device /dev/mirror/boota ...
Mounting from ufs:/dev/mirror/boota failed with
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 02:23:46PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
> On 12/12/11 16:51, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 02:47:57PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
> >>
> >>> Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on idprio 31 so this isn't an
> >>> issue. And yes, there are cases where SCHED_ULE
Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 2011-11-23 19:26, Sean Bruno wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 09:58 -0800, Rick Macklem wrote:
> >> I don't know if Dimitry tried this, but you could also try the
> >> "nolockd" option, so that byte range locking is done locally in
> >> the client and avoids the NLM.
> >>
On 12/12/11 16:51, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 02:47:57PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
>>
>>> Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on idprio 31 so this isn't an
>>> issue. And yes, there are cases where SCHED_ULE shows much better
>>> performance then SCHED_4BSD. [...]
>>
>> Do we
On 13. Dec 2011, at 00:01 , Keith Simonsen wrote:
> On 12/12/2011 12:25, Mike Tancsa wrote:
>> On 12/12/2011 2:49 PM, Keith Simonsen wrote:
>>>
>>> I've been using 20110718-02-wbwd.diff for a few months now on a project
>>> with PC Engines Alix 1.d boards (http://pcengines.ch/alix1d.htm). They
>
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:13:42PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
> On 12/12/11 16:13, Vincent Hoffman wrote:
> >
> > On 12/12/2011 13:47, O. Hartmann wrote:
> >
> >>> Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on idprio 31 so this isn't an
> >>> issue. And yes, there are cases where SCHED_ULE shows much
On 12/12/11 16:13, Vincent Hoffman wrote:
>
> On 12/12/2011 13:47, O. Hartmann wrote:
>
>>> Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on idprio 31 so this isn't an
>>> issue. And yes, there are cases where SCHED_ULE shows much better
>>> performance then SCHED_4BSD. [...]
>
>> Do we have any proof
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 02:47:57PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
> > Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on idprio 31 so this isn't an
> > issue. And yes, there are cases where SCHED_ULE shows much better
> > performance then SCHED_4BSD. [...]
>
> Do we have any proof at hand for such cases where
On 13 December 2011 01:00, Andrey Chernov wrote:
>> If the algorithm ULE does not contain problems - it means the problem
>> has Core2Duo, or in a piece of code that uses the ULE scheduler.
>
> I observe ULE interactivity slowness even on single core machine (Pentium
> 4) in very visible places,
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:40:48AM +0200, Ivan Klymenko wrote:
> > On 12/12/2011 05:47, O. Hartmann wrote:
> > > Do we have any proof at hand for such cases where SCHED_ULE performs
> > > much better than SCHED_4BSD?
> >
> > I complained about poor interactive performance of ULE in a desktop
> > e
> On 12/12/2011 05:47, O. Hartmann wrote:
> > Do we have any proof at hand for such cases where SCHED_ULE performs
> > much better than SCHED_4BSD?
>
> I complained about poor interactive performance of ULE in a desktop
> environment for years. I had numerous people try to help, including
> Jeff,
34 matches
Mail list logo
