prefer to repartition the drives for them to have swap partitions each of
size (3955/4)MiB.
By the way, is swapping distributed evenly among the drives? How? Is there a
yes.
downfall when one of the drives is outstandingly slow?
no really. sometimes swapin would be slower, 3/4 times of case
On 27 May 2013 21:58, Reid Linnemann wrote:
> from SH(1)
>
> "Note that unlike some other shells, sh executes each process in a pipe-
> line with more than one command in a subshell environment and as a
> child
> of the sh process."
>
> I'm taking this to mean that redirecting to sh_f has
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Václav Zeman wrote:
> Curious. Which of the two behaviours is POSIXly correct?
>
I believe that /bin/sh's behaviour is correct. I don't know what shell the
manpage is referring to, but it's not bash (bash does the same thing in a
pipeline). Perhaps it's referri
Hi Igor, all,
thank you for your quick response regarding
the 10GBit NIC performance.
We noticed the following when using an Intel
NIC as a reference NIC for our performance
measurements:
- We got the expected performance on FreeBSD
9.0 (32bit) and 9.1 (64bit) with:
1) LRO enabled (SW in Kern
On 27.05.2013 14:29, Orit Moskovich wrote:
From what I've read in subr_taskqueue.c taskqueue_swi, taskqueue_swi_giant and
taskqueue_fast are all implemented using swi_add which calls ithread_create().
Is there any performance difference between them. Is one of the above or
ithread given to bus
On 24.05.2013 16:46, Axel Fischer wrote:
Hi Igor,
my name is Axel Fischer. working at Marvell SC.
Hi Axel,
In addition to your reply to my colleague Lino
Sanfilippo I did some performance measurements
on FreeBSD 9 with a commercial 10 GBit network
card.
Which driver?
Unlike on other OS t
On 05/27/13 23:36, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/27/13 6:53 PM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
On 05/27/13 20:40, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/27/13 2:23 PM, Bruce Cran wrote:
On 27/05/2013 21:28, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/27/13 11:40 AM, Bruce Cran wrote:
Yes.
Is this a joke?
It probably /was
On May 28, 2013, at 7:00 AM, Ryan Stone wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Václav Zeman wrote:
> Curious. Which of the two behaviours is POSIXly correct?
>
> I believe that /bin/sh's behaviour is correct. I don't know what shell the
> manpage is referring to, but it's not bash (bash d
Hi Andre, all
The driver we used is an Intel ixgbe driver.
We use this driver as a reference for our
own Marvell driver. As on Linux our approach
is to guarantee a lock free data transmission
between rx and tx, since our HW supports this.
The ixgbe driver should not perform any serialization betw
On 5/28/13 7:49 AM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
On 05/27/13 23:36, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/27/13 6:53 PM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
On 05/27/13 20:40, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/27/13 2:23 PM, Bruce Cran wrote:
On 27/05/2013 21:28, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/27/13 11:40 AM, Bruce Cran wro
On May 28, 2013, at 8:54 AM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/28/13 7:49 AM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
On 05/27/13 23:36, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/27/13 6:53 PM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
On 05/27/13 20:40, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/27/13 2:23 PM, Bruce Cran wrote:
On 27/05/2013 21:28, Alfred Perl
On May 28, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Reid Linnemann wrote:
>
> On May 28, 2013, at 7:00 AM, Ryan Stone wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Václav Zeman wrote:
>> Curious. Which of the two behaviours is POSIXly correct?
>>
>> I believe that /bin/sh's behaviour is correct. I don't know what
[[ moved to hackers@ from private mail. ]]
On 5/28/13 1:13 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 3:29:41 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/28/13 9:04 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 2:13:32 am Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Hey folks,
I had a talk with Nathan Whitehorn ab
In the case of firmware loaded systems, all of them aren't going to work
with a single boot loader.
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Teske, Devin wrote:
>
> On May 28, 2013, at 8:54 AM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
> On 5/28/13 7:49 AM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
> On 05/27/13 23:36, Alfred Perlstein
On May 28, 2013, at 4:16 PM, Super Bisquit wrote:
In the case of firmware loaded systems, all of them aren't going to work with a
single boot loader.
Uh…
On the surface, what you're talking about seems to be unrelated to the
discussion at-hand.
Nobody said anything about unifying the boot l
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 01:35:01PM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> [[ moved to hackers@ from private mail. ]]
>
> On 5/28/13 1:13 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 3:29:41 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >> On 5/28/13 9:04 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 2:
On 5/28/13 10:08 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 01:35:01PM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
[[ moved to hackers@ from private mail. ]]
On 5/28/13 1:13 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 3:29:41 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/28/13 9:04 AM, John Baldwin wr
17 matches
Mail list logo
