At about the time of 3/28/2006 10:42 PM, Norbert Koch stated the following:
>
> Daniel Rudy schrieb:
>> Hello FreeBSD Hackers,
>>
>> I've been reading the man page on mlock(2) and a number of questions
>> have arisen about it's use. I have looked at malloc and mmap, and I
>> have not been able to
Daniel Rudy schrieb:
Hello FreeBSD Hackers,
I've been reading the man page on mlock(2) and a number of questions
have arisen about it's use. I have looked at malloc and mmap, and I
have not been able to figure this one out. There doesn't seem to be any
compiler or library options dealing wit
Hello FreeBSD Hackers,
I've been reading the man page on mlock(2) and a number of questions
have arisen about it's use. I have looked at malloc and mmap, and I
have not been able to figure this one out. There doesn't seem to be any
compiler or library options dealing with this either.
1) How d
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Patrick Tracanelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:
: >> I heard its faster if you use two dd's; i.e:
: >>
: >># dd if=/dev/ad0 bs=64k | dd of=/dev/ad1 bs=64k
: >>
: >> allowing read and write to proceed in parallel.
: >
: >
: > that's what ddd and 't
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Eder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Hi all,
:
: I would like to know if exite some header ".h" in FreeBSD so
: that I can make a direct access to hadware in machine with C.
:
: The intention is to make some things as, for example, to record ' ' in
:
Hi all,
I would like to know if exite some header ".h" in FreeBSD so
that I can make a direct access to hadware in machine with C.
The intention is to make some things as, for example, to record ' ' in
first
the 512 bytes of hd or to record one floppy with ' ' of track zero.
Eder
--
Li
I heard its faster if you use two dd's; i.e:
# dd if=/dev/ad0 bs=64k | dd of=/dev/ad1 bs=64k
allowing read and write to proceed in parallel.
that's what ddd and 'team' are for.
I don't know if ddd is in the ports as it may clash inname with teh
debugger ddd
They internally fork and use
Joe Koberg wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 25 March 2006 04:42, Mike Meyer wrote:
One thing: 1m is a bit small for modern systems. Or for not-so-modern
systems. Since nothing else is running, you might as well use all the
memory you've got, or as big as you can get a process
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 25 March 2006 04:42, Mike Meyer wrote:
One thing: 1m is a bit small for modern systems. Or for not-so-modern
systems. Since nothing else is running, you might as well use all the
memory you've got, or as big as you can get a process to be. 128m or
more i
9 matches
Mail list logo
