On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 12:01:50 +0200
Gleb Kurtsou mentioned:
> Hi,
>
> I was lucky to write a bit of code which gcc 4.2 fails to compile
> correctly with -O2. Too keep long story short the code fails for gcc
> from base system and last gcc 4.2 snapshot from ports. It works with gcc
> 4.3, gcc 4.4
On (02/12/2011 01:56), Stanislav Sedov wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 12:01:50 +0200
> Gleb Kurtsou mentioned:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was lucky to write a bit of code which gcc 4.2 fails to compile
> > correctly with -O2. Too keep long story short the code fails for gcc
> > from base system and last
Yeah
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 03:19:53PM +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> .. where are these statistics coming from? top?
>
>
> Adrian
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, se
on 30/11/2011 14:39 Steven Hartland said the following:
> We're seeing some impossible memory usage stats reported on machines
> here from vmstat and sysctl vm.vmtotal.
>
> We have machines reporting to be using 31GB total when they only have
> 8GB physical and are not using any swap.
>
> Here's
On 12/1/11 1:05 PM, Jason Hellenthal wrote:
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 10:44:58AM -, Steven Hartland wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Jason Hellenthal"
This goes along with the thoughts I had about 4 months ago tending to some
zfs statistics as well top showing greater than 100% ac
- Original Message -
From: "Jason Hellenthal"
Just to put some visuals to this...
.
`-- DIE
|-- Core1 [Idle]
|-- Core2 [35% ]
| `-- thread127
|-- Core3 [40% ]
| `-- thread127
`-- Core4 [100%]
`-- thread127
In this case you would say the DIE should be
- Original Message -
From: "Andriy Gapon"
Totalling up RSS from ps axo "rss" gives a total in the region of that if
the vm stats are out by a factor of 4, in this case it should be: 8132557
which is 7.75GB a much more realistic value.
Am I totally missing something or is there problem
Hi,
Here is a patch I use to prevent loading a shared object from a noexec
mountpoint. It's an easy way, I found, after the last root exploit
((http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2011/Nov/452), to enhance the
security of my web servers (with /home, /tmp and /var/tmp mounted with
noexec).
- the
On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 18:22:57 +0100
joris dedieu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is a patch I use to prevent loading a shared object from a noexec
> mountpoint. It's an easy way, I found, after the last root exploit
> ((http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2011/Nov/452), to enhance the
> security of my web
On 12/01/11 10:01, Zhihao Yuan wrote:
> trivial. How about to implement RFC 5848 in our syslogd?
In 2008 I implemented the syslog RFCs for NetBSD's syslogd, so if you
are interested please take a look at the syslog code in NetBSD-current
and at my report, linked under http://mschuette.name/wp/gsoc
2011/12/2 Martin Schütte :
> On 12/01/11 10:01, Zhihao Yuan wrote:
>> trivial. How about to implement RFC 5848 in our syslogd?
>
> In 2008 I implemented the syslog RFCs for NetBSD's syslogd, so if you
> are interested please take a look at the syslog code in NetBSD-current
> and at my report, linke
On 12/02/11 23:45, Zhihao Yuan wrote:
>> In 2008 I implemented the syslog RFCs for NetBSD's syslogd, so if you
> That's an amazing work. Did you compared those documents (they were
> drafts in 08') with the final versions? Any differences?
I followed the IETF process and as far as I know there are
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 05:13:05PM -, Steven Hartland wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Andriy Gapon"
>
> >> Totalling up RSS from ps axo "rss" gives a total in the region of that if
> >> the vm stats are out by a factor of 4, in this case it should be: 8132557
> >> which is 7
13 matches
Mail list logo
