On Friday, 24 May 2013, Axel Fischer wrote:
Additionally I noticed the following TCP errors
> with netstat -s ...:
>
> 1186 data packets (1717328 bytes) retransmitted
> 6847875 window update packets
> 2319 duplicate acks
> 25831 out-of-order packets (37403288 bytes)
> 3733 discarded due to memory
On 23 May 2013 19:00, Lino Sanfilippo wrote:
> Is there a known issue concerning high traffic on Tx and Rx paths? Are there
> any system
> settings I could adjust to get the expected performance? Any hints are very
> appreciated.
check your ierrs and oerrs: netstat -s 1, I've noticed I'm gett
On 19 January 2012 16:35, Robert Huff wrote:
>
> Igor Mozolevsky writes:
>
>> > Wouldn't this discourage even more people from helping?
>>
>> Would this not separate people who have a genuine interest in
>> contributing from "tinker-monkeys&qu
On 19 January 2012 11:55, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
>> On 19 January 2012 00:57, Dieter BSD wrote:
>>
>> > Idea 2: Give it status. Set up a web page with PR fixing stats
>> >
>> > name/handle..total PRs fixed...fixed in last 1
On 19 January 2012 00:57, Dieter BSD wrote:
> Idea 2: Give it status. Set up a web page with PR fixing stats
>
> name/handle..total PRs fixed...fixed in last 12 months...average fixed/year
> Sheldon..150...9072
> Leonard..131..110...
On 18 January 2012 22:53, Mark Blackman wrote:
>
> On 18 Jan 2012, at 22:50, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
>
>> On 18 January 2012 22:31, Mark Blackman wrote:
>>
>>> 10.0 - Nov 2013
>>
>> I think 10.0 should be released based on feature-readiness and not on
On 18 January 2012 22:31, Mark Blackman wrote:
> 10.0 - Nov 2013
I think 10.0 should be released based on feature-readiness and not on
some arbitrary date...
--
Igor M.
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/lis
On 18 January 2012 17:56, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 18/01/2012 19:13 Daniel Eischen said the following:
>> "someone who owns a branch..." - If you cut release N.0, do not
>> move -current to N+1. Keep -current at N for a while, prohibiting
>> ABI changes, and any other risky changes. If a develop
On 18 January 2012 18:27, Adam Vande More wrote:
> I've suggested this before without much response, but since this thread
> seems to be encouraging repetition I'll give it another go. ;)
>
> I think a bounty system would be very effective(e.g. micro-donations of
> recent political campaigns) in
On 18 January 2012 17:30, Chris Rees wrote:
> On 18 Jan 2012 17:12, "Igor Mozolevsky" wrote:
>> Back in the days when the UK banks ran ATMs, &c on Windows NT (I
>> have no idea what they are running now)
> Well I've not seen any BSOD'd cashp
On 18 January 2012 17:06, Devin Teske wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: owner-freebsd-hack...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
>> hack...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Julian Elischer
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 10:56 AM
>> To: Mark Felder
>> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
>>
On 18 January 2012 13:11, Eitan Adler wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Igor Mozolevsky
> wrote:
>> One way to
>> "encourage" people to fix their code would be to prevent them from
>> committing to -CURRENT once they pass a certain threshold of
>&
On 18 January 2012 11:08, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 18/01/2012 12:54 Igor Mozolevsky said the following:
[snip]
>>> There are about 5000 open PRs for FreeBSD base system, maybe more.
>>> There are only a few dozens of active FreeBSD developers. Maybe less for
>>>
On 18 January 2012 09:25, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 18/01/2012 02:16 Igor Mozolevsky said the following:
>> Seriously, WTF is the point of having a PR system that allows patches
>> to be submitted??! When I submit a patch I fix *your* code (not yours
>> personally, but you get
On 18 January 2012 01:11, Eitan Adler wrote:
> It takes time to review and test patches. There are a lot of people
> that think "it only takes 30 seconds to download the patch, apply, and
> commit." This is just not true.
I fully understand that and it is not what I was saying, what I was
sayin
On 18 January 2012 00:00, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> Just a note: the next best thing you can to _not_ have a patch committed is to
> just open a PR and stop at that. The best thing being not sharing the patch
> at
> all :-)
[snip]
> Some things that help:
> - send a problem description and a patc
On 17 January 2012 23:01, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> If you'd like to see:
>
> ... more frequent releases? then please step up and help with all the
> infrastructure needed to roll out test releases, including building
> _all_ the ports. A lot of people keep forgetting that a "release" is
> "build all
On 17 January 2012 15:39, Mark Felder wrote:
> FreeBSD is increasingly becoming a third world citizen thanks to
> virtualization efforts being focused on Linux, so I feel that more
> frequent releases won't help as many people as you think.
I would guess that for folks like VMWare, the choice of
On 17 January 2012 16:48, Freddie Cash wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Igor Mozolevsky
> wrote:
>> Actually, I don't think it's cash that's the problem. I think it is
>> more to do with the lack of common goal: the way that releases are
>> perc
On 17 January 2012 14:20, Ivan Voras wrote:
> On 17 January 2012 14:49, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
>> On 17 January 2012 13:44, Ivan Voras wrote:
>>> On 17/01/2012 07:32, Atom Smasher wrote:
>>>>
>>>> what percentage of linux devs are on salary to de
On 17 January 2012 13:44, Ivan Voras wrote:
> On 17/01/2012 07:32, Atom Smasher wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, richo wrote:
>>
>>> This would be a different argument if all the devs were paid a salary.
>>
>> ==
>>
>> what percentage of linux devs are on salary to develop linux?
>
>
On 17 January 2012 01:02, richo wrote:
> This would be a different argument if all the devs were paid a salary.
Isn't this a bit of a cyclical argument: developers don't work because
they are not paid a salary, the end-user base shrinks, BigCo doesn't
want to pay for someone to put extra work in
On 17 January 2012 02:25, richo wrote:
> On 17/01/12 02:21 +0000, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
>>
>> On 17 January 2012 01:02, richo wrote:
>>
>>> This would be a different argument if all the devs were paid a salary.
>>
>>
>> Isn't this a bit
/usr/src : zfs with compression enabled
/usr/src : 386.3MB/s
>>> Do I understand it well? It seems that zfs with compression enabled on
>>> /usr/src with 8KB block size and 16 threads performs 386.3MB/s which
>>> is about 6 times better than debian5? I am thinking about this image
>>> ht
On 5 June 2010 00:58, Adam PAPAI wrote:
> How can I tune my disk to make it faster? Is it possible? What is the
> reason of the really slow I/O with more than 4 threads? What do you
> recommend me to do? Why is it damn slow with 8K blocksize?
Does linux still have async disk writes by default?
2010/1/27 Oliver Fromme :
> Second, you should make sure that ATA_STANDBY_IMMEDIATE is
> only used when a poweroff is requested, but not in other
> cases. Of course, ATA_FLUSHCACHE should *always* be sent.
Would SLEEP not be a better option than STANBY IMMEDIATE, as SLEEP
actually turns the disk
2010/1/27 Igor Mozolevsky :
> Hold on, does STANDBY IMMEDIATE not abort the previous command within
> some short timeframe? What if there are pending writes?
Nope, ignore me...
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freeb
2010/1/26 Alexander Best :
> attached you'll find a very simple patch which issues ATA_STANDBY_IMMEDIATE
> instead of ATA_FLUSHCACHE during hdd spin down.
Hold on, does STANDBY IMMEDIATE not abort the previous command within
some short timeframe? What if there are pending writes?
Cheers,
--
Ig
2009/7/22 Kostik Belousov :
> I believe that the nearest action that is quite reasonable and
> profitable by its own merit is divorcing base compiler and compiler used
> to build ports. Even if this means that we would "only" have different
> versions of gcc.
On a similar note, has anyone one tr
2009/7/4 Giorgos Keramidas :
[snip]
s/0x%/%#.2hh/g
--
Igor
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
2009/6/30 Alexander Best :
> should be stdout.
>
>
> struct Header *hdr = rom;
>
> int new_fd = open("/dev/stdout", O_RDWR);
>
> printf("SIZE: %d\n",sizeof(*hdr));
>
> write(new_fd, hdr, sizeof(*hdr));
>
> close(new_fd);
You should really be checking what open returns, opening /dev/stdout
for read
2009/6/30 Alexander Best :
> that works, but i really want to have a pretty output to stdout. i guess i
> have to stick with printf and use `for (i=0; i < sizeof(XXX); i++)` for each
> array in the struct. just thought i could avoid it.
>
> btw. `./my-program | hexdump` works, but if i do `./my-pro
2009/6/30 Alexander Best :
> thanks. but that simply dumps the contents of the struct to stdout. but since
> most of the struct's contents aren't ascii the output isn't really of much
> use.
How about ./your-program | hexdump ?
--
Igor
___
freebsd-hacke
2008/10/31 Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> ... If that's what you were referring to, then possibly making O_NOATIME
> only to root would be a suitable compromise.
And no systems are compromised with rootkits?..
Igor :-)
___
freebsd-hackers@free
2008/9/30 Oliver Fromme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Bill Moran wrote:
> > In response to Oliver Fromme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > Pierre Riteau wrote:
> > >
> > > > Because the 3-way handshake ensures that the source address is
> not being
> > > > spoofed, more aggressive action can be
2008/9/6 Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> -On [20080906 20:41], Alexander Sizov ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>>Sep 5 00:34:38 test kernel: seScyonncdisn)g fdoirs kssy,s tvenmo
>>dperso creesmsa i`nsiynngc.e.r.' to3 stop...0 0 done
>
> On my AMD64 box (using 32 bit FreeBSD due t
2008/7/3 Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 1. It should be library-based and therefore be capable of supporting at
> least a few different UIs (see above).
> 2. At least one of those UIs should be functional over a standard serial
> console.
> 3. It should be scriptable.
I was thinking of doing
On 17/03/2008, Murray Stokely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The FreeBSD Project was again accepted as a mentoring organization for
> the Google Summer of Code. The student application period will begin
> next week so if you have any ideas for great student projects, please
> send them to [EMAIL
On 25/02/2008, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In response to "Igor Mozolevsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Crypto is merely a way of obfuscating data, and we all know the truth
> > about security by obscurity, right?
>
>
> I don't t
On 24/02/2008, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Igor Mozolevsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > IMO the possibility of such attack is so remote that it doesn't really
> > warrant any special attention, it's just something that s
On 24/02/2008, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Igor Mozolevsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On 23/02/2008, Brooks Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > You should actually read the paper. :) They suc
On 23/02/2008, Brooks Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You should actually read the paper. :) They successfully defeat both
> of these type of protections by using canned air to chill the ram and
> transplanting it into another machine.
Easy to get around this attack - store the key on a us
42 matches
Mail list logo
