.. please keep in mind that embedded platforms (a) don't necessarily
benefit from it, and (b) have a very small footprint. Bloating out the
compression/archival tools for the sake of possible SMP support will
make me very, very sad.
Adrian
___
freebsd-
Don't worry. I'm well known to over-optimize for both size and speed. I
have an old Pentium 3 800MHz single core that I can use to simulate an
embedded device (well, a decently powered one), to verify that I'm not
killing the single-core performance (I could add CPU capability
detection to help
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 10:16:53PM -0700, Tim Kientzle wrote:
> * Implement within libarchive directly. This would benefit tar and
> a handful of other programs that use libarchive, but may not be
> worth the complexity.
The complexity shouldn't actually be that bad. Basically, use a la
Garrett Wollman wrote:
> I had an email conversation with Rick Macklem about six months ago
> about NFS server bottlenecks. I'm now in a position to observe my
> large-scale NFS server under an actual production load, so I thought I
> would update folks on what it looks like. This is a 9.1 prerelea
On Monday, October 01, 2012 6:31:00 pm Simon J. Gerraty wrote:
> Hi Garrett,
>
> >> From: Garrett Cooper
> >> Subject: [CFT/RFC]: refactor bsd.prog.mk to understand multiple =
> >programs instead of a singular program
> >> Date: September 2, 2012 11:01:09 PM PDT
> >> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.o
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Simon J. Gerraty wrote:
>>> Not to mention the fact that bsd.prog.mk goes from being relatively
>>> simple, to unspeakably hard to read, and all for rather limited =
>>return.
>
> This btw I think is the more important issue.
> I was looking at bsd.prog.mk in netbsd
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 4:50 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
...
> This sounds like a superior approach. It doesn't break any current use
> cases while giving the ability to build multiple programs in the few
> places that need it. It sounds like there are a few places under gnu/
> from Garrett's reply
On Tue, 2 Oct 2012 07:50:23 -0400, John Baldwin writes:
>BTW, one general comment. There seem to be two completely independent
>groups of folks working on ATF (e.g. there have been two different
>imports of ATF into the tree in two different locations IIRC, and now
>we have two different sets of
On Tue, 2 Oct 2012 07:19:55 -0700, Garrett Cooper writes:
>> We put the test cases in a subdir of the lib/prog
>> This has multiple benefits, and eliminates any impact on the normal
>> build of said libs/progs.
>
>Hmmm... that's one of the 3 approaches I provided, but it turned out
>to be annoying
On Tuesday, October 02, 2012 10:29:49 am Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 4:50 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > This sounds like a superior approach. It doesn't break any current use
> > cases while giving the ability to build multiple programs in the few
> > places that need
[Adding freebsd-fs@ to the Cc list, which I neglected the first time
around...]
<
said:
> I can't remember (I am early retired now;-) if I mentioned this patch before:
> http://people.freebsd.org/~rmacklem/drc.patch
> It adds tunables vfs.nfsd.tcphighwater and vfs.nfsd.udphighwater that can
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
