Garrett,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> If someone would please, PLEASE commit this.. I will give you beer, or
> >> wine, or a copy of Skyrim, or a few months subscription to WoW, or
> >> something else of value to you that we could negotiate :)... I'm quite
> >> fran
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Larabel"
I was the on that carried out the testing and know that it was on the
same system.
All of the testing, including the system tables, is fully automated.
Under FreeBSD sometimes the parsing of some component strings isn't as
nice as Linu
Am 15.12.2011 11:10, schrieb Michael Larabel:
> No, the same hardware was used for each OS.
>
> In terms of the software, the stock software stack for each OS was used.
Just curious: Why did you choose ZFS on FreeBSD, while UFS2 (with
journaling enabled) should be an obvious choice since it is mo
On Dec 15, 2011, at 3:48 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
[…]
> That said: thrown out, data ignored, done.
>
> Now what? Where are we? We're right back where we were a day or two
> ago; meaning no closer to solving the dilemma reported by users and
> SCHED_ULE. Heck, we're not even sure if there is
On Dec 15, 2011, at 3:25 PM, Stefan Esser wrote:
> Am 15.12.2011 11:10, schrieb Michael Larabel:
>> No, the same hardware was used for each OS.
>>
>> In terms of the software, the stock software stack for each OS was used.
>
> Just curious: Why did you choose ZFS on FreeBSD, while UFS2 (with
>
15.12.2011 17:36, Michael Larabel пишет:
On 12/15/2011 07:25 AM, Stefan Esser wrote:
Am 15.12.2011 11:10, schrieb Michael Larabel:
No, the same hardware was used for each OS.
In terms of the software, the stock software stack for each OS was used.
Just curious: Why did you choose ZFS on FreeB
15.12.2011 15:48, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
I'm getting to the point where I'm considering formulating a private
mail to Jeff Roberson, requesting that he be aware of the discussion
that's happening (not that he necessarily follow or read it), and that
based on what I can tell we're at a roadblock -
Op 15-12-2011 8:32, O. Hartmann schreef:
Just saw this shot benchmark on Phoronix dot com today:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAyNzA
It may be worth to discuss the sad performance of FBSD in some parts of
the benchmark. A difference of a factor 10 or 100 is simply far bey
2011/12/14 Mike Tancsa :
> On 12/13/2011 7:01 PM, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
>>
>> Has anyone experiencing problems tried to set sysctl
>> kern.sched.steal_thresh=1 ?
>>
>> I don't remember what our specific problem at $WORK was, perhaps it
>> was just interrupt threads not getting serviced fast enou
2011/12/13 Jeremy Chadwick :
> 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
On 12/15/2011 11:26 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
> was that just the same codebase with the switch SCHED_4BSD/SCHED_ULE?
Hi Attilio,
It was the same codebase.
> Could you retry the bench checking CPU usage and possible thread
> migration around for both cases?
I can, but how do
2011/12/15 Mike Tancsa :
> On 12/15/2011 11:26 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>
>> Hi Mike,
>> was that just the same codebase with the switch SCHED_4BSD/SCHED_ULE?
>
> Hi Attilio,
> It was the same codebase.
>
>
>> Could you retry the bench checking CPU usage and possible thread
>> migration aroun
On 12/15/2011 11:42 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>
> I'm thinking now to a better test-case for this: can you try that on a
> tmpfs volume?
There is enough RAM in the box so that it should not touch the disk, and
I was sending the output to /dev/null, so it was not writing to the disk.
>
> Also what
2011/12/15 Mike Tancsa :
> On 12/15/2011 11:42 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>
>> I'm thinking now to a better test-case for this: can you try that on a
>> tmpfs volume?
>
> There is enough RAM in the box so that it should not touch the disk, and
> I was sending the output to /dev/null, so it was not wri
Am 12/15/11 14:51, schrieb Daniel Kalchev:
>
> On Dec 15, 2011, at 3:25 PM, Stefan Esser wrote:
>
>> Am 15.12.2011 11:10, schrieb Michael Larabel:
>>> No, the same hardware was used for each OS.
>>>
>>> In terms of the software, the stock software stack for each OS was used.
>>
>> Just curious: W
Am 12/15/11 14:58, schrieb Daniel Kalchev:
>
> On Dec 15, 2011, at 3:48 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>
> […]
>> That said: thrown out, data ignored, done.
>>
>> Now what? Where are we? We're right back where we were a day or two
>> ago; meaning no closer to solving the dilemma reported by users a
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:58 AM, O. Hartmann
wrote:
> Am 12/15/11 14:51, schrieb Daniel Kalchev:
>>
>> On Dec 15, 2011, at 3:25 PM, Stefan Esser wrote:
>>
>>> Am 15.12.2011 11:10, schrieb Michael Larabel:
No, the same hardware was used for each OS.
In terms of the software, the stoc
Am 12/15/11 15:20, schrieb Steven Hartland:
> With all the discussion I thought I'd give a buildworld
> benchmark a go here on a spare 24 core machine. ULE
> tested fine but with 4BSD it wont even boot panicing
> with the following:-
> http://screensnapr.com/v/hwysGV.png
>
> This is on a clean 8.2
On 15 December 2011 17:58, O. Hartmann wrote:
> Since ZFS in Linux can only be achieved via FUSE (ad far as I know), it
> is legitimate to compare ZFS and ext4. It would be much more competetive
> to compare Linux BTRFS and FreeBSD ZFS.
>
Er... does ext4 guarantee data integrity?
You're not com
2011/12/15 Jeremy Chadwick :
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 05:26:27PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> 2011/12/13 Jeremy Chadwick :
>> > 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 ar
В Thu, 15 Dec 2011 20:02:44 +0100
Attilio Rao пишет:
> 2011/12/15 Jeremy Chadwick :
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 05:26:27PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
> >> 2011/12/13 Jeremy Chadwick :
> >> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 02:47:57PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
> >> >> > Not fully right, boinc defaults to r
On 12/15/2011 11:56 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
> So, as very first thing, can you try the following:
> - Same codebase, etc. etc.
> - Make the test 4 times, discard the first and ministat for the other 3
> - Reboot
> - Change the steal_thresh value
> - Make the test 4 times, discard the first and minis
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Chris Rees wrote:
> On 15 December 2011 17:58, O. Hartmann wrote:
>> Since ZFS in Linux can only be achieved via FUSE (ad far as I know), it
>> is legitimate to compare ZFS and ext4. It would be much more competetive
>> to compare Linux BTRFS and FreeBSD ZFS.
>>
2011/12/15 Mike Tancsa :
> On 12/15/2011 11:56 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> So, as very first thing, can you try the following:
>> - Same codebase, etc. etc.
>> - Make the test 4 times, discard the first and ministat for the other 3
>> - Reboot
>> - Change the steal_thresh value
>> - Make the test 4 t
These two changes allow you to set PXE as the default MBR boot selection, which
enables you to write a 'reboot to the network' script. We've found it to be
very useful. What do people think?
Thanks,
Andrew
> Index: usr.sbin/boot0cfg/boot0cfg.c
> ===
On 15 Dec 2011 21:25, "Kevin Oberman" wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Chris Rees wrote:
> > On 15 December 2011 17:58, O. Hartmann
wrote:
> >> Since ZFS in Linux can only be achieved via FUSE (ad far as I know), it
> >> is legitimate to compare ZFS and ext4. It would be much more
co
Hi,
This is interesting. I wrote some newer documentation for PXE booting
here:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/network-pxe-nfs.html
In 32.8.4, bullet item 1, I mentioned that it is necessary to
configure network booting in the BIOS menu.
With your change, is entering the BIOS menu to confi
On 14 Dec, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <1323868832.5283.9.ca...@hitfishpass-lx.corp.yahoo.com>, Sean
> Bruno
> writes:
>
>>We're seeing what looks like a syncher/ufs resource starvation on 9.0 on
>>the cvs2svn ports conversion box. I'm not sure what resource is tapped
>>out.
>
> Sear
On Dec 15, 2011, at 6:40 PM, Craig Rodrigues wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is interesting. I wrote some newer documentation for PXE booting
> here:
> http://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/network-pxe-nfs.html
>
> In 32.8.4, bullet item 1, I mentioned that it is necessary to
> configure network booting in
On 12/14/2011 05:20, Sean Bruno wrote:
> We're seeing what looks like a syncher/ufs resource starvation on 9.0 on
> the cvs2svn ports conversion box.
... sounds like a good reason not to migrate the history to me. :)
--
[^L]
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowl
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:32 AM, O. Hartmann
wrote:
> Just saw this shot benchmark on Phoronix dot com today:
>
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAyNzA
>
it might be worth highlighting that despite Oracle Linux 6.1 Server is
using a kernel + compiler almost 2 years old, i
On 12/16/2011 02:41, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:32 AM, O. Hartmann
wrote:
Just saw this shot benchmark on Phoronix dot com today:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAyNzA
it might be worth highlighting that despite Oracle Linux 6.1 Server is
using
Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:32 AM, O. Hartmann
wrote:
Just saw this shot benchmark on Phoronix dot com today:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAyNzA
it might be worth highlighting that despite Oracle Linux 6.1 Server is
using a kernel + compiler a
On 12/16/11 07:44, Joe Holden wrote:
> Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:32 AM, O. Hartmann
>> wrote:
>>> Just saw this shot benchmark on Phoronix dot com today:
>>>
>>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAyNzA
>>>
>> it might be worth highlighting that
34 matches
Mail list logo
