I'm going to try these ideas out, thanks for the pointers. I'm
highly motivated to stop waiting so long :-). And a nice
use for the systems that have been piling up, if this works
out.
I'll be reporting back...
Cheers,
Russell
%
%On 20-Jan-01 Wes Peters wrote:
%> "R
%> No it would not! Back in '94 I ported dmake to FreeBSD
%> and built just about every numerics package out there
%> on a 4 CPU cluster. Worked fine, but not much in overall
%> speedup, because... tadum! Where do you get the source
%> files, and how do you get the objs back :-) Not low
%> lat
%Uwe Pierau wrote:
%>
%> Jamie Heckford wrote:
%> # Hi,
%> # Does anyone have any details of Open Source, or software included
%> # with FreeBSD that allows the clustering of FreeBSD?
%>
%> Maybe you mean something like this...
%> http://acme.ecn.purdue.edu/index.html
%> ?!
%
%Yes!
%
%
%In all honesty, I am just looking for something to play
%with and see how fast FreeBSD can go.
%
%Sort of thing where those two guys clustered about 200 486's
%or something stupid like that..
Go to google and search for Beowulf. Or Mosix.
Or Ron Minnich :-)
Or "smart networks", if all you
%In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
%Russell L. Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
%>
%> Bingo!
%>
%> Thanks guys!
%
%Not so fast there, fella. You're not getting off that easily. ;-)
%Could you please try the patch below? It is like the patch that Paul
%sent,
Bingo!
Thanks guys!
Russell
%John Polstra ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
%> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
%> Russell L. Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
%> >
%> > On a fairly recent -STABLE I am getting this failure:
%> >
%> > ld-elf.so.1: assert fai
Greetings,
On a fairly recent -STABLE I am getting this failure:
ld-elf.so.1: assert failed: /usr/src/libexec/rtld-elf/rtld.c:2033
I assume I'm doing something stupid, however the same code
works on Linux gcc-2.95.2, so I'm looking for what the
difference might be.
The program is an ACE/TAO C
|
|forgot to add: I need pointers to start digging around
It might be interesting to trace through libgcc_r.
Russell
|
|/fjoe
|
|
|
|To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
|
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|hi, there!
|
|can someone take a look at this?
|seems that it's a flaw in 4.x pthreads implementation
|under RELENG_3 everything works fine, haven't tried this on -current
|i'm totally lost at this point
Multithreaded C++ exceptions have been broken since about August '99.
Use the macros if you
%
%I have searched the archive for a while and still have some confusions
%about this subjects:
%
%(1) Some people say "For I/O bound activity, kernel threads are a really
%bad idea". But I read the following passage from else where:
%
%Kernel threads perform better in I/O-intensive applications
%On Sun, Dec 19, 1999 at 02:49:26PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
%
%> I dunno if it goes without saying or not, but this certainly makes
%> the current FreeBSD threads implementation highly unpalatable, except
%> to support ported code which has been developed elsewhere and which
%> is alread
%Nick Hibma wrote:
%>
%> Being multi-threaded has almost nothing to do with being
%> multi-processor. Multi-threading means that your application has
%> multiple threads of execution that are able to run simultaneously.
%>
%> The multi-processing capability of your box means that 2 threads of
%>
Hi All,
The stuff defined in /usr/include/posix4/semaphore.h, is
not implemented in -current, right? If I missed it, I'd
appreciate a pointer...
Russell
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
%Unmodified FreeBSD TCP at > 1Gb/s.
%
%http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/08/990802072727.htm
That is so very cool.
There is a separate war going on optimizing bandwidth,
latency, and QoS for IIOP, i.e. CORBA's usual protocol.
Against all of the heavyweights, RTOS's etc. etc., linux is
l
%Unmodified FreeBSD TCP at > 1Gb/s.
%
%http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/08/990802072727.htm
That is so very cool.
There is a separate war going on optimizing bandwidth,
latency, and QoS for IIOP, i.e. CORBA's usual protocol.
Against all of the heavyweights, RTOS's etc. etc., linux is
|At 10:35 AM 7/23/99 -0400, Adrian Filipi-Martin wrote:
|>On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote:
|>
|>> On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Adrian Filipi-Martin wrote:
|>>
|>> > I know a lot of people like the ASUS P2B boards, but I've noticed a
|>> > tendency for the systems to reset occasionally when pluggi
|At 10:35 AM 7/23/99 -0400, Adrian Filipi-Martin wrote:
|>On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote:
|>
|>> On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Adrian Filipi-Martin wrote:
|>>
|>> > I know a lot of people like the ASUS P2B boards, but I've noticed a
|>> > tendency for the systems to reset occasionally when plugg
%> Define clustering. If you mean a bunch of boxes that serve up HTTP
%> requests and the lot of them continue working in the face of a
%> failure on one, you CAN do this with FreeBSD, and the "Beowulf"
%> software you're probably thinking of for Linux WILL NOT do this.
%I have looked into the
%> Define clustering. If you mean a bunch of boxes that serve up HTTP
%> requests and the lot of them continue working in the face of a
%> failure on one, you CAN do this with FreeBSD, and the "Beowulf"
%> software you're probably thinking of for Linux WILL NOT do this.
%I have looked into the
%
%
%On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Russell L. Carter wrote:
%
%>
%> %Basically there are some applications and benchmarks for which FreeBSD
%>
%> uh, "benchmarks" only, until evidence is produced otherwise.
[...]
%ok here are some of the problems..
%
%Matt's changes allow d
%Basically there are some applications and benchmarks for which FreeBSD
uh, "benchmarks" only, until evidence is produced otherwise.
Tuning for benchmarks has been around a long long time.
People get worked up about this because the people who give
out the money to buy the systems use benchmark
21 matches
Mail list logo
