Doug Barton wrote:
> On 07/07/2012 16:33, Garrett Wollman wrote:
>> The utilities (specifically host(1) and dig(1)) are the only
>> user-visible interfaces I care about.
[...]
> ldns (a dependency of unbound) comes with drill, which is a dig-alike
> tool. I'd like to see us produce a host-alike ba
Mark Linimon wrote:
> fwiw, from previous discussions on FreeBSD boot time, ISTR that there
> are other places where more time is spent. Some analysis to prove that
> indeed the rc subsystem is the dominant term would be a good starting
> place.
While I don't want to proliferate this thread or ad
Andy Young wrote:
> After using Linux for almost 15 years, I only recently started using
> FreeBSD. I own an internet startup and was looking for a solution for
> implementing large-scale storage servers. In my research I found ZFS and
> subsequently found FreeBSD. As I learned more about it, I wa
Da Rock wrote:
> I googled a bit and found an old post here from Luigi
> (http://osdir.com/ml/freebsd-hackers/2008-11/msg00245.html) which had a
> script to do this, but I'm having trouble with it- is anyone familiar
> with this? I'm on a bit of a deadline...
Can't help you with that script (I
Fabien Thomas wrote:
>> So, what's going on here? Is this the intended behavior, or can it
>> be changed? And how do I get accurate readings?
>
> If i remember well:
> The current code will get real HW PMC if the PMC is running and attached to
> owner.
> The first case is not true in your code so
Hi, folks. I'm trying to use pmc(3) to analyze code fragments, and
I've run into strange behavior: the counter values returned by
pmc_read(3) sometimes show no increment between readings, but are
updated a second later; even if the PMC in question was stopped
before.
Here's a test program:
#i
> the idea to start services concurrently during boot isn't new and the
> question why FreeBSD doesn't do it has popped up on the forum and
> mailing list occasionally. So, why not give it a shot?
As someone who uses FreeBSD on hist laptop and is constantly annoyed
by the lack of suspend-to-disk,
> I haven't done any measurements yet on how large the speedup is, but booting
> feels a bit faster with it.
FWIW, my laptop's boot time (from pressing "power" to seeing login
prompt) is reduced from 44s to 37s (out of which, first 20-25s are
kernel booting).
__
Zafer Aydoğan wrote:
> Hmm... there seems to be very little interest so far.
FWIW, I find this tool useful, but since it's most helpful when you
need to dig into a previously unknown portion of code, which doesn't
happen that often, it's reasonable to expect infrequent usage -- don't
mistake that
Steven Hartland wrote:
> A few key question come to mind:-
> 1. Has sendmail's config moved away from the black art
> it once was?
No.
> 2. Is postfix that much easier?
Yes.
> 3. What would people use for:
> 3.1. POP / IMAP support?
Dovecot. As a bonus, Postfix can use Dovecot's SASL for authe
10 matches
Mail list logo
