Thanks everyone for responding.
I'll use QDBM as most attractive from my point of view. Oracle BDB is
to complex for my task and have drastic "free" license with unknown price
for commercial use. Licensing is not a main issue for me now,
but i'll beware it to be on the safe side.
I think that Fr
Romain Tartière wrote:
I am trying to have an Adaptec RAID 3805 controller working on FreeBSD
7.0. According to the release note [1], it's okay. Unfortunately, the
driver fails to detect everything as expected. The following is
displayed at boot-time:
aac0: mem 0xff20-0xff3f irq 16
Hello All
This issue goes back some time, but I do not see a solution. Sorry
about the cross post
not sure where this belongs. Here is an overview of my issue which is
similar and I hope
someone can point me in the direction of a solution.
I have experiencing an odd socket related issue on a
Hello All
This issue goes back some time, but I do not see a solution. Sorry
about the cross post
not sure where this belongs. Here is an overview of my issue which is
similar and I hope
someone can point me in the direction of a solution.
I have experiencing an odd socket related issue on a
Kurt J. Lidl wrote:
This catapults back into the arena of "stuff that isn't in the
base system". Not to mention I'm not sure that the Oracle BDB
license would allow bundling in the OS as a binary. I doubt it,
but that's a different bikeshed to paint :-)
Is the LGPL of QDBM and TokyoCabinet a
On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:44:06 +0400
Anthony Pankov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Monday, Mike Meyer May 12, 2008, 11:24:30 PM, you wrote:
>
> MM> On Mon, 12 May 2008 22:35:31 +0400 Anthony Pankov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >> Because BDB:
> >> 1. do not need additional installation
> >> 2.
on 13/05/2008 22:16 Kostik Belousov said the following:
I looked at your previous patch, and it seems it is much simpler to
do drop the devmtx once more then to try to abuse free lists.
In the destroy_devl(), after the
while (dev->si_threadcount != 0) {
/* Use unique du
This is just out of curiosity, not a real issue.
I use i386 RELENG_7.
I recently played with dd-ing memory contents out of /dev/mem and
examining various stuff. I "intuitively" expected dd to reach EOF at
0x (i.e. maximum possible address for i386 non-PAE), but it
continued on. Appare
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 10:04:56PM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 12/05/2008 00:48 Kostik Belousov said the following:
> >No, we do not have a leak, but we have somewhat non-obvious behaviour.
> >
> >The cdev structure is freed only after the last reference to cdev is
> >gone. Typical holder of th
on 13/05/2008 22:04 Andriy Gapon said the following:
on 12/05/2008 00:48 Kostik Belousov said the following:
No, we do not have a leak, but we have somewhat non-obvious behaviour.
The cdev structure is freed only after the last reference to cdev is
gone. Typical holder of the reference is the d
on 12/05/2008 00:48 Kostik Belousov said the following:
No, we do not have a leak, but we have somewhat non-obvious behaviour.
The cdev structure is freed only after the last reference to cdev is
gone. Typical holder of the reference is the devfs vnode. In the normal
usage, the vnode is present
Hi!
I am trying to have an Adaptec RAID 3805 controller working on FreeBSD
7.0. According to the release note [1], it's okay. Unfortunately, the
driver fails to detect everything as expected. The following is
displayed at boot-time:
> aac0: mem 0xff20-0xff3f irq 16 at device 14.0 on
>
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 05:14:52AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 03:44:06PM +0400, Anthony Pankov wrote:
> > If concurrency is the only problem then:
> > 1. ?an data corruption be avoided? Or this is impossible?
> > 2. How?
>
> Use Sleepycat/Oracle DB instead? The libc D
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 03:44:06PM +0400, Anthony Pankov wrote:
> My requirements is
> 1. there is no need for SQL
> 2. processes are sharing db file in concurrent mode
> 3. reading/writing = 60%/40%
>
> With BDB
> clause 1 - satisfied
> clause 3 - satisfied (databases of relatively small items th
On May 12, 2008, at 6:56 PM, Kurt Lidl wrote:
Garrett Cooper wrote:
On May 12, 2008, at 1:38 AM, Anthony Pankov wrote:
Please, can anybody explain what is the problem with BDB (1.86).
Is there known caveats of using BDB? Is there some rules which
guarantee from curruption or it is fully unde
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 03:44:06PM +0400, Anthony Pankov wrote:
> 3. reading/writing = 60%/40%
I don't know where you get those numbers from, but they feel *very*
wrong from the perspective of someone who actually dealt a lot with
those tools. Writing is only a very small part of the operations an
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 03:44:06PM +0400, Anthony Pankov wrote:
> If concurrency is the only problem then:
> 1. ?an data corruption be avoided? Or this is impossible?
> 2. How?
Use Sleepycat/Oracle DB instead? The libc DB1.x, despite being
"mature", really should be deprecated in some manner.
I'
Monday, Mike Meyer May 12, 2008, 11:24:30 PM, you wrote:
MM> On Mon, 12 May 2008 22:35:31 +0400 Anthony Pankov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Because BDB:
>> 1. do not need additional installation
>> 2. is part of base system which mean it is mature, reliable and stable
MM> BDB in the base system
18 matches
Mail list logo
