Thus spake SJ ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Hi!
> 1. "ioconf.c" contains struct config_resource and
> config_device definitions for declarations in
> "config" file. But I noticed that for some devices
> e.g. device atadisk
> device atapicd
> ...
>
Terry Lambert writes:
> I don't understand the inability to perform the trivial
> design engineering necessary to keep from needing to put
> 60,000 files in one directory.
>
> However, we can take it as a given that people who need
> to do this are incapable of doing computer science.
One could
Shannon Hendrix writes:
> On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 12:03:33PM -0400, Jason Andresen wrote:
>> Here's the results I got from postmark, which seems to be the closest
>> match to the original problem in the entire ports tree.
>>
>> Test setup:
>> Two machines with the same make and model hardware,
void wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 12:40:11PM -0600, Matt Simerson wrote:
> >
> > When did that change? As of March which was the last time
> > I had my grubby little hands all over a F5 BigIP box in our
> > lab, it was NOT running FreeBSD. It runs a tweaked version
> > of BSDI's kernel.
On Tue, 22 May 2001, Shannon Hendrix wrote:
:
:Point taken, but the "yank power, see who survives" test is illogical
:and dangerous thinking.
Depends on the enviornment. I've had lots of machines just lose power.
People will pull power cords out, the back-up generators won't start
before the ba
Nadav Eiron wrote:
>
> I ran tests that I think are similar to what Jason ran on identically
> configured FreeBSD and Linux/ReiserFS machines. ResierFS is much much
> faster than UFS+softupdates on these tests.
[ ... ]
> Both tests were done with postmark-1.5, 6 files in
> 1 transaction
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 10:55:09PM -0300, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> And just to get things worse... :-) the test must be made on the *same*
> slice. If you configure two different slices, the one on the outer
> tracks will be faster.
I cannot verify that with my drive, but my largest is 18GB so
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 12:03:33PM -0400, Jason Andresen wrote:
> Here's the results I got from postmark, which seems to be the closest
> match to the original problem in the entire ports tree.
>
> Test setup:
> Two machines with the same make and model hardware, one running
> FreeBSD 4.0, the
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 09:20:32PM -0400, Shannon Hendrix wrote:
> I'm willing to overnight your test if you want. Do you have it packaged
> up to send?
I meant to say did you have the parameters you used saved. I'm assuming
now though, that you used the defaults for the program except for
tran
Shannon Hendrix wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 02:49:21PM -0400, Jason Andresen wrote:
>
> > 6 files took ~15 minutes to create as is. I'm going to have to wait
> > until tonight to run larger sets. 2.2.16 is what we have here.
> > I'm still waiting to see how much faster ReiserFS is.
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 09:31:34AM -0400, Jason Andresen wrote:
> Er, I don't think ReiserFS is in the Linux kernel yet, although it is
> the default filesystem on some distros apparently.
ReiserFS, on my system anyway, started just losing files. I'd log in and
would notice some mp3 files or s
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 02:49:21PM -0400, Jason Andresen wrote:
> 6 files took ~15 minutes to create as is. I'm going to have to wait
> until tonight to run larger sets. 2.2.16 is what we have here.
> I'm still waiting to see how much faster ReiserFS is.
I'm willing to overnight your te
Nadav Eiron wrote:
>
> I ran tests that I think are similar to what Jason ran on identically
> configured FreeBSD and Linux/ReiserFS machines. ResierFS is much much
> faster than UFS+softupdates on these tests.
For that matter, did you have vfs.vmiodirenable enabled?
--
Daniel C. Sobral
Nadav Eiron wrote:
>
> I ran tests that I think are similar to what Jason ran on identically
> configured FreeBSD and Linux/ReiserFS machines. ResierFS is much much
> faster than UFS+softupdates on these tests.
>
> FreeBSD 4.3-RELEASE (ufs/softupdates):
4.3 does not have the dirpref changes.
(
Jason Andresen wrote:
>
> Results:
> ufs+softupdates is a little slower than ext2fs+wc for low numbers of
> files, but scales better. I wish I had a Reiserfs partition to
> test with.
Ext2fs is a non-contender.
Note, though, that there is some very recent perfomance improvement on
very large d
Jason Andresen wrote:
>
> If only FreeBSD could boot from those funky M-Systems flash disks.
It can.
--
Daniel C. Sobral(8-DCS)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wow regex humor... I'm a geek
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
Hi all,
I am new to writing device drivers...so please excuse
my ignorance.
I have a couple of questions regarding that:
1. "ioconf.c" contains struct config_resource and
config_device definitions for declarations in
"config" file. But I noticed that for some devices
e.g. device
I didn't, but I believe Jason's numbers (for ext2 and ufs) also had write
caching only enabled on Linux.
On Tue, 22 May 2001, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 10:27:27PM +0300, Nadav Eiron wrote:
> > I ran tests that I think are similar to what Jason ran on identically
> > configur
:>
:> The whole point is to release resources as early as possible. Why would
:> you ever want to intentionally introduce a race that will 'sometimes' be
:> lost and thus cause a late resource release when you can just as easily
:> completely guarentee that the resource will be r
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 10:27:27PM +0300, Nadav Eiron wrote:
> I ran tests that I think are similar to what Jason ran on identically
> configured FreeBSD and Linux/ReiserFS machines. ResierFS is much much
> faster than UFS+softupdates on these tests.
>
> Linux (2.2.14-5 + ReiserFS):
> Time:
>
On 22-May-01 Matt Dillon wrote:
>:>:
>:>:John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
>:>
>:> Huh? It doesn't look like the same algorithm to me.
>:
>:In exit1() we attempt to free resources early if we can. If we lose the
>:race,
>:we still clean it up in vmspace_free(
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 02:15:18PM -0600, Nate Williams wrote:
> > > > Is there any specific reason why one needs to be able to
> > > > write a lock to the CVS repo when running 'make update'
> > > > to get a freshly checked out source?
> > >
> > > Yeah: you aren't running your CVS server in "pse
:>:
:>:John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
:>
:> Huh? It doesn't look like the same algorithm to me.
:
:In exit1() we attempt to free resources early if we can. If we lose the race,
:we still clean it up in vmspace_free() called from cpu_wait(). If you check
:t
On 22-May-01 Matt Dillon wrote:
>
>:
>:
>:On 22-May-01 Matt Dillon wrote:
>:>:Ok, then why not let the current shmexit() stay in exit1() as a hack to
>:>:help
>:>:free memory, but add in a check in vmspace_free() as well to catch any race
>:>:conditions that may fall through the cracks? As long
:
:
:On 22-May-01 Matt Dillon wrote:
:>:Ok, then why not let the current shmexit() stay in exit1() as a hack to help
:>:free memory, but add in a check in vmspace_free() as well to catch any race
:>:conditions that may fall through the cracks? As long as we clear the shm
:>:pointer in struct vms
> > > Is there any specific reason why one needs to be able to
> > > write a lock to the CVS repo when running 'make update'
> > > to get a freshly checked out source?
> >
> > Yeah: you aren't running your CVS server in "pserver"
> > mode, and so are trying to do a lock, either in your
> > local
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 04:00:31AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Is there any specific reason why one needs to be able to
> > write a lock to the CVS repo when running 'make update'
> > to get a freshly checked out source?
>
> Yeah: you aren't running your CVS server in "pserver"
> mode, and s
ReiserFS entered Linux kernels in the pre 2.4.1 series, and was 'official' with 2.4.1.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 12:40:11PM -0600, Matt Simerson wrote:
>
> When did that change? As of March which was the last time I had my grubby
> little hands all over a F5 BigIP box in our lab, it was NOT running FreeBSD.
> It runs a tweaked version of BSDI's kernel.
I believe it is Terry's infor
I ran tests that I think are similar to what Jason ran on identically
configured FreeBSD and Linux/ReiserFS machines. ResierFS is much much
faster than UFS+softupdates on these tests.
Linux (2.2.14-5 + ReiserFS):
Time:
164 seconds total
97 seconds of transactions (103 per second)
"Albert D. Cahalan" wrote:
>
> Jason Andresen writes:
> > Er, I don't think ReiserFS is in the Linux kernel yet, although it is
> > the default filesystem on some distros apparently. I think Linus has
> > some reservations about the stability of the filesystem since it is
>
> It is in the kerne
> -Original Message-
> From: Terry Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 10:59 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: technical comparison
>
> ] I work in an environment consisting of 300+ systems, all FreeBSD
> ] and Solaris, along with lots of EMC and F5 s
Jason Andresen writes:
> "Albert D. Cahalan" wrote:
>> It should be immediately obvious that ext2 is NOT the filesystem
>> being proposed, async or not. For large directories, ext2 sucks
>> as bad as UFS does. This is because ext2 is a UFS clone.
>>
>> The proposed filesystem is most likely Reise
] I work in an environment consisting of 300+ systems, all FreeBSD
] and Solaris, along with lots of EMC and F5 stuff. Our engineering division
] has been working on a dynamic content server and search engine for the
] past 2.5 years. They have consistently not met up to performance and
]
Hi,
In fact, I don't really believe in a hardware
problem like a false contact on a temp sensor.
I also noticed that a boot time, it stays
blocked at "waiting 15s for scsi device to settle" during arround 10 min what
would indicate that it's more an OS / driver problem.
In my previous mail,
According to Brian Somers:
> If pppctl is still working (ppp will talk to it), then it may be
> worth seeing what ``show physical'' and ``show timer'' say (is the
> link open, or is ppp waiting for something to happen via a timeout?).
Locked again with a pppctl attached.
show timer
-=-=-
IPCP
At 12:34 PM 5/22/2001 +0200, julien wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>We have a quite disapointing problem with a mylex 170 card, which causes
>a system crash every 6 hours.
>This card is installed in a VA Linux 2240 with 4 18GB drives, configured
>in a single RAID 5 pack, running a FreeBSD 4.2-stable system.
>W
Jason Andresen wrote:
>
> Jason Andresen wrote:
>
> Oops, I fubbed up the linux at 6 files test, I'm rerunning it now,
> but it will take a while to finish.
>
> > Results:
> > ufs+softupdates is a little slower than ext2fs+wc for low numbers of
> > files, but scales better. I wish I had a
If memory serves me right, "Karsten W. Rohrbach" wrote:
> i am currently evaluating different styles of implementing documentation
> for some multiplatform software stuff. first i though about html only
> docs, but this is not sufficient. then i thought about tex docs but this
> wont work out eit
Jason Andresen wrote:
Oops, I fubbed up the linux at 6 files test, I'm rerunning it now,
but it will take a while to finish.
> Results:
> ufs+softupdates is a little slower than ext2fs+wc for low numbers of
> files, but scales better. I wish I had a Reiserfs partition to
> test with.
To
"Albert D. Cahalan" wrote:
>
> Gordon Tetlow writes:
> > On Mon, 21 May 2001, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> >> [Charles C. Figueire]
>
> >>> c) A filesystem that will be fast in light of tens of thousands of
> >>>files in a single directory (maybe even hundreds of thousands)
> >>
> >> I think we c
[trimming CCs]
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 09:31:34AM -0400, Jason Andresen wrote:
> Er, I don't think ReiserFS is in the Linux kernel yet, although it is
> the default filesystem on some distros apparently. I think Linus has
> some reservations about the stability of the filesystem since it is
>
On Mon, 21 May 2001, Benno Rice wrote:
> Please feel free to review, comment, etc.
>
> The snapshot is in the form of a diff against -CURRENT and a tar.gz file
> containing new files that would need to be committed. Both of these
> files are rooted in src/sys.
Nice! Reading through the changes,
As it says in sys/net/if.h, IFF_RUNNING means "resources allocated" and
IFF_UP means "interface is up". As I interpret this, the difference is that
IFF_RUNNING is set when the interface is initialised and indicates that it
is ready to be used. IFF_UP on the other hand is set by the user to indicat
"Albert D. Cahalan" wrote:
> It should be immediately obvious that ext2 is NOT the filesystem
> being proposed, async or not. For large directories, ext2 sucks
> as bad as UFS does. This is because ext2 is a UFS clone.
>
> The proposed filesystem is most likely Reiserfs. This is a true
> journal
Jordan Hubbard([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2001.05.21 15:37:05 +:
> > c) A filesystem that will be fast in light of tens of thousands of
> >files in a single directory (maybe even hundreds of thousands)
>
> I think we can more than hold our own with UFS + soft updates. This
> is another area wher
hey folks,
i am currently evaluating different styles of implementing documentation
for some multiplatform software stuff. first i though about html only
docs, but this is not sufficient. then i thought about tex docs but this
wont work out either.
the idea is to have a single 'master repo' sty
On 22-May-01 Matt Dillon wrote:
>:Ok, then why not let the current shmexit() stay in exit1() as a hack to help
>:free memory, but add in a check in vmspace_free() as well to catch any race
>:conditions that may fall through the cracks? As long as we clear the shm
>:pointer in struct vmspace when
Wilko Bulte wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Is there any specific reason why one needs to be able to
> write a lock to the CVS repo when running 'make update'
> to get a freshly checked out source?
Yeah: you aren't running your CVS server in "pserver"
mode, and so are trying to do a lock, either in your
loca
Hi all,
We have a quite disapointing problem with a mylex 170 card, which causes
a system crash every 6 hours.
This card is installed in a VA Linux 2240 with 4 18GB drives, configured
in a single RAID 5 pack, running a FreeBSD 4.2-stable system.
We have to notice that this system ran during 4 mon
Hey there, I found a great retail site with all kinds of products. Home
decor, office decor, travel, outdoors, kitchen, etc... Take a look around
at http://www.merchandisewholesale.com just click on the images of the
product to enlarge it for a better view.
Sincerely,
John
To Un
Mon, May 21, 2001 at 18:46:57, imp (Warner Losh) wrote about "Re: sysctl to disable
reboot":
> : In addition, I prefer my approach here because it's a single,
> : known toggle that doesn't involve messing with other parts of the
> : system. I might just want to disable keyboard rebooting
> :
Hi,
I sent this question to freebsd-questions but haven't got any answer,
yet. That is why I'm now trying here. Here is my question.
I have noticed that every time the perfmon device is closed it shuts
down the PMECs. While I can see this is appropriate for some
applications, it is not for mine.
53 matches
Mail list logo
