On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Yuri wrote:
> On 11/06/2012 11:10, Samuel J. Greear wrote:
>>
>> Single and multi-socket hardware are not really directly comparable in
>> PostgreSQL tests.
>
>
> So if the CPUs are split between sockets, would such system generally
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Yuri wrote:
> On 11/05/2012 12:52, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>>
>> FWIW, I think that the last time scheduler benchmarks from anyone at
>> @FreeBSD.org (was kris@ the last one, or has flo@ run benchmarks since
>
>
> I myself ran the similar test on i7 920 (4 cores 8 th
Your entire email is conjecture, the performance of DragonFly 3.2 is
improved across the board vs 3.0. Not just batch performance,
interactive performance (especially under X11) is also greatly
improved.
Sam
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 2:25 AM, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
>> some serious system issue.
>>
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 8/21/2012 11:08 AM, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>>> Neither importing ldns nor removing BIND is going to have any effect on
>>> the stub resolver library in libc.
>>
>> Yes it does as if we are not car
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Ivan Voras wrote:
> >> On 02/22/2012 01:42, Ivan Voras wrote:
> >> > The Dragonfly team has recently liberated their VM from the giant lock
> >> > and there are some interesting benchmarks comparing it to FreeBSD 9
> and a
> >> > derivative of RedHat Enterprise Li
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 02/22/2012 01:42, Ivan Voras wrote:
> > The Dragonfly team has recently liberated their VM from the giant lock
> and there are some interesting benchmarks comparing it to FreeBSD 9 and a
> derivative of RedHat Enterprise Linux:
> >
> > http
On Sunday 13 March 2005 14:24, Anish Mistry wrote:
> On Sunday 13 March 2005 01:23 pm, Chris Hodgins wrote:
> > Samuel J. Greear wrote:
> > > Not a bad 'idea' at all, although I won't comment on semantics.
> > > I had something implemented using fs st
Not a bad 'idea' at all, although I won't comment on semantics. I had
something implemented using fs stacking (in a very hackish way, and I
believe it's lost now, so don't ask to see it...) to implement per-jail
quota's that seemed to work quite well.
Sam
>
> This might be a very stupid idea b
On Monday 18 February 2002 07:54 pm, Peter Wemm wrote:
> Mike Silbersack wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, Hiten Pandya wrote:
> > > hi all,
> > >
> > > As to conclude this thread (for me.), I have come to the decision of
> > > actually starting a project for making a BSD Licensed in-kernel HTTPd
>
On Monday 26 November 2001 03:45 am, Antony T Curtis wrote:
> Robert Watson wrote:
> > On Sun, 25 Nov 2001, Gregory Neil Shapiro wrote:
>
>
>
> > In the jailng code, I allow jails to be identified using a name (other
> > than the hostname) when they are created, and that can later be used as a
>
10 matches
Mail list logo
