> I do not loathe ULE, but I also do not use ULE.
Maybe my wording wasn't exactly suitable, but that was the
point I was trying to make. ULE is default for quite some
time (and boasted impressive benchmarks upon introduction too),
yet in reality 4BSD is far from being superseded for many.
--
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 01:09:47AM -0700, Jakub Lach wrote:
>
> "* Scheduler rewrite"
>
> They threw out old scheduler and have instant gains? That's
> too good to be true, seeing as still some loathe ULE in
> FreeBSD after all this time.
>
'loathe' appears to be an interesting choice of word.
On 14.10.2012 12:47, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 14/10/2012 00:27 Pedro Giffuni said the following:
Actually ...
On 10/13/2012 13:38, Jakub Lach wrote:
I'm not at all up to date with DragonFly, so does anybody know
what did they change so spectacularly between 3.0/3.2?
Their explanation of the ch
on 14/10/2012 00:27 Pedro Giffuni said the following:
> Actually ...
>
> On 10/13/2012 13:38, Jakub Lach wrote:
>> I'm not at all up to date with DragonFly, so does anybody know
>> what did they change so spectacularly between 3.0/3.2?
>>
> Their explanation of the changes is here:
>
> http://www
Thanks for replies.
"* Finally, default values for many things on 64-bit machines
have been adjusted upward significantly to make proper use
of available resources"
Well that one should be fast to test, if it really makes so much
difference.
"* Scheduler rewrite"
They threw out old scheduler
On 13 October 2012 14:27, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Actually ...
>
>
> On 10/13/2012 13:38, Jakub Lach wrote:
>>
>> I'm not at all up to date with DragonFly, so does anybody know
>> what did they change so spectacularly between 3.0/3.2?
>>
> Their explanation of the changes is here:
>
> http://www.sh
Actually ...
On 10/13/2012 13:38, Jakub Lach wrote:
I'm not at all up to date with DragonFly, so does anybody know
what did they change so spectacularly between 3.0/3.2?
Their explanation of the changes is here:
http://www.shiningsilence.com/dbsdlog/2012/09/19/10403.html
Cheers,
Pedro.
__
Hello;
On 10/13/2012 13:38, Jakub Lach wrote:
I'm not at all up to date with DragonFly, so does anybody know
what did they change so spectacularly between 3.0/3.2?
I stopped following Dragonfly a while ago but it seems like
it was some VM SMP related work:
http://www.dragonflybsd.org/release
I'm not at all up to date with DragonFly, so does anybody know
what did they change so spectacularly between 3.0/3.2?
--
View this message in context:
http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Re-new-DragonFly-3-2-scheduler-and-PostgreSQL-comparision-with-FreeBSD-9-1-RC1-tp5751589p5751733.html
Sent
On 12 October 2012 11:10, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote:
> I don't like comparing Release Candidates without any details about config,
> but the fact that DF 3.2 is much better than DF 3.0 is interesting. And they
> are very close to performance of Scientific Linux 6.2.
Hey cool! And F
10 matches
Mail list logo
