On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> nobody should be running an open FTP server that allows
> uploading to anyone unless they are willing to take the time to
> monitor it
Some ftp daemons have the option to automatically email
the admins every time a file gets uploaded.
> 100MB is pl
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> Brad Huntting wrote:
>
> > Could we perhaps "close" the freebsd-current list?
>
> No.
I've just setup a system which stores spam regexps in
a CVS tree and automatically regenerates my majordomo.cf
whenever new spam regular expressions are added.
Curre
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Matt Dillon wrote:
> :You need to settle dude, pre-emption isn't a goal, it's mearly a
> :_possible_ side effect.
> :
> :We're not aiming for pre-emption, we're aiming for more concurrancy.
>
> A goal of having more concurrency is laudable, but I think you are
> ig
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Matt Dillon wrote:
> Under a full load polling would work just as well as an interrupt.
> With NT for the network tests they hardwired each NIC to a particular
> CPU. I don't know if they did any polling or not.
Not true. Interrupts work worse than polling becau
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, E.B. Dreger wrote:
> For minimal CPU utilization, it would be nice skip task switching,
> period. Run something to completion, then go on to the next task.
> Poll without ever using an interrupt.
[snip]
> Hence, my philosophy is that task switching and preemption are
> ne
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> requires vm_page_queues_mtx:
> manipulation of vm_page_queues
[snip]
> pmaps spotted:
> pmap_copy_page
> pmap_page_protect
There is potential for nasty lock ordering conflicts here.
Page faults will govm_mtx -> vm_page_queues_mtx
The pageout
On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Cejka Rudolf wrote:
>
> > Right now, I have upgraded my -current machine from
> > February 13 to April 26.
> >
> > I were pleased with change to dir allocation in FFS,
> > but here are my unpleasant test results (UDMA33, partition
>
On Sun, 6 May 2001, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 02:37:07PM -0700, Dennis Glatting wrote:
> >
> > I wrote a trivial program to fill vm and found I can reliably freeze my
> > system. It may not work on the first attempt, but certainly within three.
> > My command line is:
> >
>
On Sun, 6 May 2001, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> On Sun, 06 May 2001 04:47:24 MST, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> > What resource limits have you set?
>
> While that's a reasonable question when you're in a support role, I'd
> certainly like to hear whether "FreeBSD freezes on memory exhaustion" is
> someth
On Mon, 7 May 2001, Matt Dillon wrote:
> their hands of the whole affair. A production machine with 128M of ram
> and 1G of swap is going to go down the tubes performance-wise long
> before it runs out of swap. Performance degredation under heavy
> memory loads is a much more in
On Mon, 7 May 2001, Matt Dillon wrote:
> :Indeed, this is an interesting area. In the process of
> :researching how to best implement this for Linux I have
> :found various reasons why both FreeBSD's and NetBSD's
> :load control systems cannot work in various realistic
> :scenarios.
>
> A
>
On Mon, 7 May 2001, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> * Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010507 10:59] wrote:
> > The next step is designing a load control system that
> > does work (not too hard) and having a reliable way of
> > detecting when exactly the system is thrash
On Mon, 7 May 2001, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> In FreeBSD we submit a patch perhaps after having an N-way
> conversation (*) about the problem being addressed.
> I'm are awaiting your patch,
I'll let this contradiction speak for itself.
You'll see a detailed analysis soon, patches will come on
13 matches
Mail list logo
