On 5/28/13 10:08 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 01:35:01PM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
[[ moved to hackers@ from private mail. ]]
On 5/28/13 1:13 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 3:29:41 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/28/13 9:04 AM, John Baldwin wr
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 01:35:01PM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> [[ moved to hackers@ from private mail. ]]
>
> On 5/28/13 1:13 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 3:29:41 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >> On 5/28/13 9:04 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 2:
On May 28, 2013, at 4:16 PM, Super Bisquit wrote:
In the case of firmware loaded systems, all of them aren't going to work with a
single boot loader.
Uh…
On the surface, what you're talking about seems to be unrelated to the
discussion at-hand.
Nobody said anything about unifying the boot l
In the case of firmware loaded systems, all of them aren't going to work
with a single boot loader.
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Teske, Devin wrote:
>
> On May 28, 2013, at 8:54 AM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
> On 5/28/13 7:49 AM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
> On 05/27/13 23:36, Alfred Perlstein
[[ moved to hackers@ from private mail. ]]
On 5/28/13 1:13 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 3:29:41 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/28/13 9:04 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 2:13:32 am Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Hey folks,
I had a talk with Nathan Whitehorn ab
On May 28, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Reid Linnemann wrote:
>
> On May 28, 2013, at 7:00 AM, Ryan Stone wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Václav Zeman wrote:
>> Curious. Which of the two behaviours is POSIXly correct?
>>
>> I believe that /bin/sh's behaviour is correct. I don't know what
On May 28, 2013, at 8:54 AM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/28/13 7:49 AM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
On 05/27/13 23:36, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/27/13 6:53 PM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
On 05/27/13 20:40, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/27/13 2:23 PM, Bruce Cran wrote:
On 27/05/2013 21:28, Alfred Perl
On 5/28/13 7:49 AM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
On 05/27/13 23:36, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/27/13 6:53 PM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
On 05/27/13 20:40, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/27/13 2:23 PM, Bruce Cran wrote:
On 27/05/2013 21:28, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/27/13 11:40 AM, Bruce Cran wro
Hi Andre, all
The driver we used is an Intel ixgbe driver.
We use this driver as a reference for our
own Marvell driver. As on Linux our approach
is to guarantee a lock free data transmission
between rx and tx, since our HW supports this.
The ixgbe driver should not perform any serialization betw
On May 28, 2013, at 7:00 AM, Ryan Stone wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Václav Zeman wrote:
> Curious. Which of the two behaviours is POSIXly correct?
>
> I believe that /bin/sh's behaviour is correct. I don't know what shell the
> manpage is referring to, but it's not bash (bash d
On 05/27/13 23:36, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/27/13 6:53 PM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
On 05/27/13 20:40, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/27/13 2:23 PM, Bruce Cran wrote:
On 27/05/2013 21:28, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/27/13 11:40 AM, Bruce Cran wrote:
Yes.
Is this a joke?
It probably /was
On 24.05.2013 16:46, Axel Fischer wrote:
Hi Igor,
my name is Axel Fischer. working at Marvell SC.
Hi Axel,
In addition to your reply to my colleague Lino
Sanfilippo I did some performance measurements
on FreeBSD 9 with a commercial 10 GBit network
card.
Which driver?
Unlike on other OS t
On 27.05.2013 14:29, Orit Moskovich wrote:
From what I've read in subr_taskqueue.c taskqueue_swi, taskqueue_swi_giant and
taskqueue_fast are all implemented using swi_add which calls ithread_create().
Is there any performance difference between them. Is one of the above or
ithread given to bus
Hi Igor, all,
thank you for your quick response regarding
the 10GBit NIC performance.
We noticed the following when using an Intel
NIC as a reference NIC for our performance
measurements:
- We got the expected performance on FreeBSD
9.0 (32bit) and 9.1 (64bit) with:
1) LRO enabled (SW in Kern
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Václav Zeman wrote:
> Curious. Which of the two behaviours is POSIXly correct?
>
I believe that /bin/sh's behaviour is correct. I don't know what shell the
manpage is referring to, but it's not bash (bash does the same thing in a
pipeline). Perhaps it's referri
On 27 May 2013 21:58, Reid Linnemann wrote:
> from SH(1)
>
> "Note that unlike some other shells, sh executes each process in a pipe-
> line with more than one command in a subshell environment and as a
> child
> of the sh process."
>
> I'm taking this to mean that redirecting to sh_f has
prefer to repartition the drives for them to have swap partitions each of
size (3955/4)MiB.
By the way, is swapping distributed evenly among the drives? How? Is there a
yes.
downfall when one of the drives is outstandingly slow?
no really. sometimes swapin would be slower, 3/4 times of case
17 matches
Mail list logo
