>I disagree. BogoMIPS is a completely meaningless measurement
> and does not belong in our source tree as it will only produce
> repository bloat.
I would agree.. BogoMIPS actually stands for "Bogus, Misleading
Indication of Processor Speed"... In an old Linux Journal article I have
(will
On Sun, 10 Oct 1999, Chris Costello wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 10, 1999, Laurence Berland wrote:
> > I like the idea as an optional LINT parameter that is NOT in the generic
> > kernel. Might make some linux people feel comfortable with the switch,
> > or might prove useful under some odd circumstance
On Sun, Oct 10, 1999, Laurence Berland wrote:
> I like the idea as an optional LINT parameter that is NOT in the generic
> kernel. Might make some linux people feel comfortable with the switch,
> or might prove useful under some odd circumstances, but I agree it'd be
> silly to include it by defa
I like the idea as an optional LINT parameter that is NOT in the generic
kernel. Might make some linux people feel comfortable with the switch,
or might prove useful under some odd circumstances, but I agree it'd be
silly to include it by default (kindof on the level of a splash screen)
Robert S
Wilko Bulte writes:
> "The Wrath of Satoshi" (free interpretation of "The Wrath of Khan")
> 8-)
The question is, does "The Wrath of Satoshi" also have Kirstie Alley
in the role of Lt. Saavik? And if it doesn't, what else does it have
that makes it worth watching?
Too bad she's a scientologist.
Wilko Bulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "The Wrath of Satoshi" (free interpretation of "The Wrath of Khan")
> 8-)
The question is, does "The Wrath of Satoshi" also have Kirstie Alley
in the role of Lt. Saavik? And if it doesn't, what else does it have
that makes it worth watching?
Too bad she'
* Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami (as...@freebsd.org) [990903 12:14]:
> * From: Jonathan Lemon
>
> * hw.clockrate: 132
>
> * Doing this for Pentium and better systems should be trivial. Doing
> * it for 486 and lower would just add a timing loop. Doing it for SMP
> * would be harde
Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Nick Sayer wrote in list.freebsd-hackers:
> > Linux generates a meric of CPU performance as a byproduct of calibrating
> > a delay loop.
>
> It's not a metric of CPU performance. It's just a meaningless
> number, and its relation to the actual performance of the
> machine
As Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote ...
> * From: Wilko Bulte
>
> * As Chris Costello wrote ...
>
> * >I don't think the local Ports Wraith would be amazingly happy
> *
> * No. He will turn into a Ports Wrath
>
> Hey, if you're going to make fun of me, at least CC: me or something
* Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [990903 12:14]:
> * From: Jonathan Lemon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * hw.clockrate: 132
>
> * Doing this for Pentium and better systems should be trivial. Doing
> * it for 486 and lower would just add a timing loop. Doing it for SM
Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Nick Sayer wrote in list.freebsd-hackers:
> > Linux generates a meric of CPU performance as a byproduct of calibrating
> > a delay loop.
>
> It's not a metric of CPU performance. It's just a meaningless
> number, and its relation to the actual performance of the
> machin
As Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote ...
> * From: Wilko Bulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * As Chris Costello wrote ...
>
> * >I don't think the local Ports Wraith would be amazingly happy
> *
> * No. He will turn into a Ports Wrath
>
> Hey, if you're going to make fun of me, at least
> Hey, if you're going to make fun of me, at least CC: me or something
> so I know! ;)
>
> -PW (W?)
oh oh! He's upgraded his acronym ... He's gonna take over the world !
--
ISIS/STA, T.P.270, Joint Research Centre, 21020 Ispra, Italy
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
wit
> Hey, if you're going to make fun of me, at least CC: me or something
> so I know! ;)
>
> -PW (W?)
oh oh! He's upgraded his acronym ... He's gonna take over the world !
--
ISIS/STA, T.P.270, Joint Research Centre, 21020 Ispra, Italy
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "
* From: Wilko Bulte
* As Chris Costello wrote ...
* >I don't think the local Ports Wraith would be amazingly happy
*
* No. He will turn into a Ports Wrath
Hey, if you're going to make fun of me, at least CC: me or something
so I know! ;)
-PW (W?)
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord
As Chris Costello wrote ...
> On Thu, Sep 02, 1999, Karl Pielorz wrote:
> > Chris Costello wrote:
> > >No, since it would just be useless bloat in the source tree.
> >
> > If we must have it, how about a port? - I'm definitely for the "this isn't a
> > good idea" crowd, When I was using Linux,
* From: Wilko Bulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* As Chris Costello wrote ...
* >I don't think the local Ports Wraith would be amazingly happy
*
* No. He will turn into a Ports Wrath
Hey, if you're going to make fun of me, at least CC: me or something
so I know! ;)
-PW (W?)
To Unsubscribe:
As Chris Costello wrote ...
> On Thu, Sep 02, 1999, Karl Pielorz wrote:
> > Chris Costello wrote:
> > >No, since it would just be useless bloat in the source tree.
> >
> > If we must have it, how about a port? - I'm definitely for the "this isn't a
> > good idea" crowd, When I was using Linux
* From: Jonathan Lemon
* What I want is a simple new readable sysctl, something like:
*
* hw.clockrate: 132
*
* I think that this would be useful both for development (how fast
* is that stupid machine down in the bunker?), and system admininstration
* (who needs a cpu
* From: Jonathan Lemon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* What I want is a simple new readable sysctl, something like:
*
* hw.clockrate: 132
*
* I think that this would be useful both for development (how fast
* is that stupid machine down in the bunker?), and system admininstration
Chris Costello wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 02, 1999, Robert Sexton wrote:
> > I'd have to agree with the "Lets be more professional" crowd.
> >
> > How about as a LINT option? "If you need something so banal, you can
> > turn it on yourself"
>
>No, since it would just be useless bloat in the sou
Ollivier Robert wrote:
>
> According to Nick Sayer:
> > Would anyone scream and projectile-vomit if I added this to identcpu.c?
>
> Yes. We are also FreeBSD users/developers because we don't follow the Linux
> way. Bogomips are [as it says] bogus and many people acknoledge this but far
> too ofte
Chris Costello wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 02, 1999, Robert Sexton wrote:
> > I'd have to agree with the "Lets be more professional" crowd.
> >
> > How about as a LINT option? "If you need something so banal, you can
> > turn it on yourself"
>
>No, since it would just be useless bloat in the so
Ollivier Robert wrote:
>
> According to Nick Sayer:
> > Would anyone scream and projectile-vomit if I added this to identcpu.c?
>
> Yes. We are also FreeBSD users/developers because we don't follow the Linux
> way. Bogomips are [as it says] bogus and many people acknoledge this but far
> too oft
In article you write:
>> CPU: Pentium/P54C (132.73-MHz 586-class CPU)
>> Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0x52c Stepping=12
>> Features=0x1bf
>>
>> Seems more precise and informative. For 386/486 based hardware
>> someone could adapt one of the numerous CPU speed detection routines
>> out there
In article you write:
>> CPU: Pentium/P54C (132.73-MHz 586-class CPU)
>> Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0x52c Stepping=12
>> Features=0x1bf
>>
>> Seems more precise and informative. For 386/486 based hardware
>> someone could adapt one of the numerous CPU speed detection routines
>> out ther
> CPU: Pentium/P54C (132.73-MHz 586-class CPU)
> Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0x52c Stepping=12
> Features=0x1bf
>
> Seems more precise and informative. For 386/486 based hardware
> someone could adapt one of the numerous CPU speed detection routines
> out there.
Indeed. In fact, if someon
On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Ollivier Robert wrote:
> According to Nick Sayer:
> > Would anyone scream and projectile-vomit if I added this to identcpu.c?
>
> Yes. We are also FreeBSD users/developers because we don't follow the Linux
> way. Bogomips are [as it says] bogus and many people acknoledge thi
"Matthew N. Dodd" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > There was such a thing in 386BSD and FreeBSD1.0
> >
> > I certainly thing it was a worth-while thing.
> > I'd try make the loop as similar to the Linux one so that they are
> > comparable.
>
> My vote is to make the numbe
According to Nick Sayer:
> Would anyone scream and projectile-vomit if I added this to identcpu.c?
Yes. We are also FreeBSD users/developers because we don't follow the Linux
way. Bogomips are [as it says] bogus and many people acknoledge this but far
too often you see in some Linux list/newsgrou
> CPU: Pentium/P54C (132.73-MHz 586-class CPU)
> Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0x52c Stepping=12
> Features=0x1bf
>
> Seems more precise and informative. For 386/486 based hardware
> someone could adapt one of the numerous CPU speed detection routines
> out there.
Indeed. In fact, if someo
On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Ollivier Robert wrote:
> According to Nick Sayer:
> > Would anyone scream and projectile-vomit if I added this to identcpu.c?
>
> Yes. We are also FreeBSD users/developers because we don't follow the Linux
> way. Bogomips are [as it says] bogus and many people acknoledge th
"Matthew N. Dodd" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > There was such a thing in 386BSD and FreeBSD1.0
> >
> > I certainly thing it was a worth-while thing.
> > I'd try make the loop as similar to the Linux one so that they are
> > comparable.
>
> My vote is to make the numb
On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Julian Elischer wrote:
> There was such a thing in 386BSD and FreeBSD1.0
>
> I certainly thing it was a worth-while thing.
> I'd try make the loop as similar to the Linux one so that they are
> comparable.
My vote is to make the number printed in parity with the number printed
According to Nick Sayer:
> Would anyone scream and projectile-vomit if I added this to identcpu.c?
Yes. We are also FreeBSD users/developers because we don't follow the Linux
way. Bogomips are [as it says] bogus and many people acknoledge this but far
too often you see in some Linux list/newsgro
We have this for 586+ class machines:
CPU: Pentium/P54C (132.73-MHz 586-class CPU)
Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0x52c Stepping=12
Features=0x1bf
Seems more precise and informative. For 386/486 based hardware
someone could adapt one of the numerous CPU speed detection routines
out there.
On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Nick Sayer wrote in list.freebsd-hackers:
> > Linux generates a meric of CPU performance as a byproduct of calibrating
> > a delay loop.
>
> It's not a metric of CPU performance. It's just a meaningless number,
> and its relation to the actual perform
On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Julian Elischer wrote:
> There was such a thing in 386BSD and FreeBSD1.0
>
> I certainly thing it was a worth-while thing.
> I'd try make the loop as similar to the Linux one so that they are
> comparable.
My vote is to make the number printed in parity with the number printe
> If we must have it, how about a port? - I'm definitely for the "this isn't a
> good idea" crowd, When I was using Linux, I thought it was 'cute'... I've
> grown up a bit since then...
Create /usr/ports/useless_linux_utils
Add this and code for making the keyboard lights blink in time to whateve
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999, Karl Pielorz wrote:
> Chris Costello wrote:
> >No, since it would just be useless bloat in the source tree.
>
> If we must have it, how about a port? - I'm definitely for the "this isn't a
> good idea" crowd, When I was using Linux, I thought it was 'cute'... I've
> grown
It was there... when I added the code to calibrate the
delay loops originally and added the DELAY
macro, it printed out the callibration factor..
(DELAY was originally a spin loop)
It wasn't called 'BOGOMIPS...'
On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Nate Williams wrote:
> > There was such a thing in 386BSD an
Chris Costello wrote:
>
>No, since it would just be useless bloat in the source tree.
>
If we must have it, how about a port? - I'm definitely for the "this isn't a
good idea" crowd, When I was using Linux, I thought it was 'cute'... I've
grown up a bit since then...
-Kp
To Unsubscribe: s
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999, Nick Sayer wrote:
> Would anyone scream and projectile-vomit if I added this to identcpu.c?
Yes, I would. The way I interpret it, along with "useless
blinking light", is as follows:
BogoMIPS is but the combination of "Bogus" and an acronym for
"Meaningless Indicator o
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999, Robert Sexton wrote:
> I'd have to agree with the "Lets be more professional" crowd.
>
> How about as a LINT option? "If you need something so banal, you can
> turn it on yourself"
No, since it would just be useless bloat in the source tree.
--
|Chris Costello
|Super
> There was such a thing in 386BSD and FreeBSD1.0
I remember no such thing doing a 'bogomips' to compare against Linux.
Certainly not in 386BSD.
Nate
>
> I certainly thing it was a worth-while thing.
> I'd try make the loop as similar to the Linux one so that they are
> comparable.
>
> On Th
As Nick Sayer wrote ...
> so long as
> they don't break anything in the process.
>
> I would like to generate a number that will hopefully be reasonably
> compatible with
> the one Linux spits out. The best method I have come up with is to have
> a similar
> (the same?) count down loop in assembl
We have this for 586+ class machines:
CPU: Pentium/P54C (132.73-MHz 586-class CPU)
Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0x52c Stepping=12
Features=0x1bf
Seems more precise and informative. For 386/486 based hardware
someone could adapt one of the numerous CPU speed detection routines
out there.
On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Nick Sayer wrote in list.freebsd-hackers:
> > Linux generates a meric of CPU performance as a byproduct of calibrating
> > a delay loop.
>
> It's not a metric of CPU performance. It's just a meaningless number,
> and its relation to the actual perfor
> If we must have it, how about a port? - I'm definitely for the "this isn't a
> good idea" crowd, When I was using Linux, I thought it was 'cute'... I've
> grown up a bit since then...
Create /usr/ports/useless_linux_utils
Add this and code for making the keyboard lights blink in time to whatev
Nick Sayer wrote in list.freebsd-hackers:
> Linux generates a meric of CPU performance as a byproduct of calibrating
> a delay loop.
It's not a metric of CPU performance. It's just a meaningless
number, and its relation to the actual performance of the
machine is very questionable.
> We don't
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999, Karl Pielorz wrote:
> Chris Costello wrote:
> >No, since it would just be useless bloat in the source tree.
>
> If we must have it, how about a port? - I'm definitely for the "this isn't a
> good idea" crowd, When I was using Linux, I thought it was 'cute'... I've
> grow
It was there... when I added the code to calibrate the
delay loops originally and added the DELAY
macro, it printed out the callibration factor..
(DELAY was originally a spin loop)
It wasn't called 'BOGOMIPS...'
On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Nate Williams wrote:
> > There was such a thing in 386BSD a
Chris Costello wrote:
>
>No, since it would just be useless bloat in the source tree.
>
If we must have it, how about a port? - I'm definitely for the "this isn't a
good idea" crowd, When I was using Linux, I thought it was 'cute'... I've
grown up a bit since then...
-Kp
To Unsubscribe:
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999, Nick Sayer wrote:
> Would anyone scream and projectile-vomit if I added this to identcpu.c?
Yes, I would. The way I interpret it, along with "useless
blinking light", is as follows:
BogoMIPS is but the combination of "Bogus" and an acronym for
"Meaningless Indicator
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999, Robert Sexton wrote:
> I'd have to agree with the "Lets be more professional" crowd.
>
> How about as a LINT option? "If you need something so banal, you can
> turn it on yourself"
No, since it would just be useless bloat in the source tree.
--
|Chris Costello <[EMAI
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 10:40:30AM -0700, Nick Sayer wrote:
> Linux generates a meric of CPU performance as a byproduct of calibrating
> a delay loop.
> We don't require doing any such thing, and so adding it would be purely
> cosmetic.
> However, I allege that cosmetic things aren't in and of them
> There was such a thing in 386BSD and FreeBSD1.0
I remember no such thing doing a 'bogomips' to compare against Linux.
Certainly not in 386BSD.
Nate
>
> I certainly thing it was a worth-while thing.
> I'd try make the loop as similar to the Linux one so that they are
> comparable.
>
> On T
As Nick Sayer wrote ...
> so long as
> they don't break anything in the process.
>
> I would like to generate a number that will hopefully be reasonably
> compatible with
> the one Linux spits out. The best method I have come up with is to have
> a similar
> (the same?) count down loop in assemb
Nick Sayer wrote in list.freebsd-hackers:
> Linux generates a meric of CPU performance as a byproduct of calibrating
> a delay loop.
It's not a metric of CPU performance. It's just a meaningless
number, and its relation to the actual performance of the
machine is very questionable.
> We don'
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 10:40:30AM -0700, Nick Sayer wrote:
> Linux generates a meric of CPU performance as a byproduct of calibrating
> a delay loop.
> We don't require doing any such thing, and so adding it would be purely
> cosmetic.
> However, I allege that cosmetic things aren't in and of the
>
>>
>> Would anyone scream and projectile-vomit if I added this to identcpu.c?
>>
>
>I might. :-) Why exactly, except to keep up with the Linux kidz, do we need
>this? I recognize that this is solely a cosmetic change, but one of the
>things I hold over the heads of the Linux folks I deal wit
There was such a thing in 386BSD and FreeBSD1.0
I certainly thing it was a worth-while thing.
I'd try make the loop as similar to the Linux one so that they are
comparable.
On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Nick Sayer wrote:
> Linux generates a meric of CPU performance as a byproduct of calibrating
> a delay
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 10:40:30AM -0700, Nick Sayer wrote:
>
> Would anyone scream and projectile-vomit if I added this to identcpu.c?
>
I might. :-) Why exactly, except to keep up with the Linux kidz, do we need
this? I recognize that this is solely a cosmetic change, but one of the
thing
Linux generates a meric of CPU performance as a byproduct of calibrating
a delay loop.
We don't require doing any such thing, and so adding it would be purely
cosmetic.
However, I allege that cosmetic things aren't in and of themselves evil,
so long as
they don't break anything in the process.
I w
>
>>
>> Would anyone scream and projectile-vomit if I added this to identcpu.c?
>>
>
>I might. :-) Why exactly, except to keep up with the Linux kidz, do we need
>this? I recognize that this is solely a cosmetic change, but one of the
>things I hold over the heads of the Linux folks I deal wi
There was such a thing in 386BSD and FreeBSD1.0
I certainly thing it was a worth-while thing.
I'd try make the loop as similar to the Linux one so that they are
comparable.
On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Nick Sayer wrote:
> Linux generates a meric of CPU performance as a byproduct of calibrating
> a delay
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 10:40:30AM -0700, Nick Sayer wrote:
>
> Would anyone scream and projectile-vomit if I added this to identcpu.c?
>
I might. :-) Why exactly, except to keep up with the Linux kidz, do we need
this? I recognize that this is solely a cosmetic change, but one of the
thin
Linux generates a meric of CPU performance as a byproduct of calibrating
a delay loop.
We don't require doing any such thing, and so adding it would be purely
cosmetic.
However, I allege that cosmetic things aren't in and of themselves evil,
so long as
they don't break anything in the process.
I
68 matches
Mail list logo
