On 26 Apr, Andrew Hesford wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 06:08:36PM -0500, Michael C . Wu wrote:
>> | and a bunch of ARMs for low-level I/O tasks. Back to imagination. (Take
>> | a look at 0.15um copper process FPGAs with embeded ARM at Altera, for
>> | example, and you will see why no one, in t
On 26 Apr, Michael C . Wu wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 04:24:18PM +0200, Remy Nonnenmacher scribbled:
> | On 17 Apr, Andrew Hesford wrote:
> | > On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 12:49:04PM -0700, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote:
> | For sure. Look at how it's pretty more easy to use an ARM
On 17 Apr, Andrew Hesford wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 12:49:04PM -0700, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote:
>> I would love to see FreeBSD running natively (64bit) under the x86-64
>> architecture, and unlike the Itainium, it's differences with x86-32
>> seem to be few (of course).
>
>> Porting FreeBSD t
On 7 Dec, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Remy Nonnenmacher wr
> ites:
>
>>Well, I may think using this solution if it remains portable between
>>Unixes. I finally tracked down the problem, after suppressing the
>>reason to cal
On 6 Dec, Matt Dillon wrote:
> :
> :OK. In fact my problem was just a printf that allocated a buffer via
> :__smakebuf at the very last moment (when all memory was allocated).
> :This prevent free() to give back all previous pages up to this one. The
> :problem was _not_ in malloc.c.
> :
> :Anywa
the caller.
Thanks.
RN.
IhM
On 6 Dec, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Remy Nonnenmacher wr
> ites:
>
>>>From the /usr/src/lib/libc/stdlib/malloc.c sources, it seems that this
>>is due to not shrinking/relocating pagedir pages (free_page
Hello,
I'm encountering a problem with the stardard libc malloc/free library.
if a program allocates a huge (and temporary) amount of memory with
small structures then free it, the library gives back only a few pages
to the system.
>From the /usr/src/lib/libc/stdlib/malloc.c sources, it seems th
On 16 Nov, Mike Silbersack wrote:
>
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Eugene Polovnikov wrote:
>
>> Are you sure that your system isn't hacked/cracked ?
>> Content of packets look strange for me.
>
> Yeah, now that you suggested that, I checked - that's Stacheldraht's
> handiwork.
>
> Unplug the box soon
Hello,
It seems that some Linux distribs are on trouble with icmp replies that
get replied (see below). My question is: is there any known issue on
FreeBSD getting an icmp reply and responding by another icmp reply ?
(Guess not but better be sure).
Exemple:
00:10:37.305915 33.85.11.rrcentralflo
On 22 Aug, Peter Seebach wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jonathan Lemon writ
> es:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>t> you write:
2. How does the OS manage main memory and does it manage secondary storage
to back up main memory. I need on algorithm and one structure to show thi
In followup of the FFS thread, I would like to know if there are some
recommendations for running unattended machines. For exemple, avoiding
the 'run fsck manually' (for exemple, when co-locating a machine far
away where it is not possible to get a console login).
Hints appreciated on other point
On 4 Jul, Doug Rabson wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
>
>> On Jul 07, 1999 at 11:15:13AM +0100, Doug Rabson wrote:
>> > > In essence, I want to move the large "struct pollfd" array that I
>> > > have into the kernel, and then instruct the kernel to add/remove
>> > > entries fr
On 4 Jul, Doug Rabson wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
>
>> On Jul 07, 1999 at 11:15:13AM +0100, Doug Rabson wrote:
>> > > In essence, I want to move the large "struct pollfd" array that I
>> > > have into the kernel, and then instruct the kernel to add/remove
>> > > entries f
On 18 Nov, Zach Brown wrote:
>
>> >(sysctl-ized) in FBSD (Some work have been done in Linux, since a
>> >well-known comparative benchmark offense). Would be even more usefull
>> >in SMP context.
>
> I don't think the wake-many problem was ever the cause of the poor numbers
> that comparitve benc
On 18 Nov, Bosko Milekic wrote:
>
> Although I've presently received little feedback on this...
>
> I found a potential problem with the patch, so I am taking the following
> approach to bypass it. I have a feeling that there's another way, though
> (perhaps better, conceptually).
>
> Consider
15 matches
Mail list logo
