On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 06:10:06PM +0800, Xin LI wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 09:21:10AM +, Ceri Davies wrote:
> > I don't really think that this benchmark is bad news for either OS. My
> > only real concern are the process creation/termination results on FreeBSD.
>
> I guess that this mi
I've just noticed I can't create a raw socket on 5.3-RELEASE, while the
same code works on 5.2. I get 'Protocol not supported' error on code
like this:
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
void main() {
int sock = socket(AF_LINK, SOCK_RAW, 0);
if (sock < 0)
printf(st
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Ivan Voras wrote:
> I've just noticed I can't create a raw socket on 5.3-RELEASE, while the
> same code works on 5.2. I get 'Protocol not supported' error on code
> like this:
I've not got a 5.2 box on hand, but this appears not to work on 4.x.
There isn't a domain handler
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Ceri Davies wrote:
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 06:10:06PM +0800, Xin LI wrote:
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 09:21:10AM +, Ceri Davies wrote:
I don't really think that this benchmark is bad news for either OS. My
only real concern are the process creation/termination results on FreeB
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 01:55:27PM +, Ceri Davies wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 06:10:06PM +0800, Xin LI wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 09:21:10AM +, Ceri Davies wrote:
> > > I don't really think that this benchmark is bad news for either OS. My
> > > only real concern are the proce
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 01:21:14PM -0500, Charles Sprickman wrote:
> Any idea what type of impact this patch would have on say, a large qmail
> server that's drowning in context-switches?
It will depend on how many processes you have running at any one
moment and how often processes are created/d
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Charles Sprickman wrote:
> Any idea what type of impact this patch would have on say, a large qmail
> server that's drowning in context-switches?
Probably not, but if you have a tolerance for doing profiling, loading
debugging code, etc, there may be other things we can do t
Robert Watson wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Ivan Voras wrote:
>
>
>> I've just noticed I can't create a raw socket on 5.3-RELEASE, while the
>> same code works on 5.2. I get 'Protocol not supported' error on code
>> like this:
>
>
>
> I've not got a 5.2 box on hand, but this appears not to work on 4
David Malone wrote:
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 01:21:14PM -0500, Charles Sprickman wrote:
Any idea what type of impact this patch would have on say, a large qmail
server that's drowning in context-switches?
It will depend on how many processes you have running at any one
moment and how often
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, David Malone wrote:
DM> On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 01:21:14PM -0500, Charles Sprickman wrote:
DM> > Any idea what type of impact this patch would have on say, a large qmail
DM> > server that's drowning in context-switches?
DM>
DM> It will depend on how many processes you have ru
10 matches
Mail list logo
