Linux have a very sophisticated scheduler dealing/scaling
very
efficient with lots of threads/cpu cores? This could also be a very interesting
benchmark
pointing to AMDs new Epyc platform comprised also from lots of cpu cores).
Kind regards,
oh
--
O. Hartmann
Ich widerspreche der Nutzung oder Übermittlung meiner Daten für
Werbezwecke oder für die Markt- oder Meinungsforschung (§ 28 Abs. 4 BDSG).
pgpObsPNtCPLL.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
uch for this finding.
It is interesting that with a generic kernel, the "performance" is roughly the
half of
what Linux and DFBSD would give.
I miss performance benchmarks, it seems, that over the past couple of years
this habit
has become quite unusual for FreeBSD.
Oliver
--
On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 11:48:30 +0200
Borja Marcos wrote:
Hello.
First, thanks for responding so quickly.
> > On 01 Aug 2016, at 08:45, O. Hartmann wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 08:58:08 +0200
> > Borja Marcos wrote:
> >
> >> There is an option
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 08:58:08 +0200
Borja Marcos wrote:
> > On 22 Jun 2016, at 04:08, Jason Zhang wrote:
> >
> > Mark,
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > We have same RAID setting both on FreeBSD and CentOS including cache
> > setting. In FreeBSD, I enabled the write cache but the performance is the
> >
On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 04:43:05 -0500
grarpamp wrote:
> HyperThreading on Intel Xeon Haswell, a benefit?
>
> What bits of FreeBSD are aware and can take proper advantage of
> Intel HTT, such as its thread/process schedulers (sched-BSD/ULE/...),
> etc?
>
> What system/app loads are, or are not, like
Am Thu, 17 Jul 2014 20:15:39 +0430
Hooman Fazaeli schrieb:
> On 7/16/2014 5:59 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 03:56:13PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> I did some measurements and hacks to see about the performance and
> >> scalability of PostgreSQL 9.
Phoronix has emitted another of its "famous" performance tests
comparing different flavours of Linux (their obvious favorite OS):
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=bsd_linux_8way&num=1
It is "impressive, too, to see that PHORONIX did not benchmark the
gaming performance - this is
Am 02/20/13 10:09, schrieb Anton Shterenlikht:
> Oliver
>
> I try to use FreeBSD for day-to-day numerical
> work, as far as possible. I have to complement
> it with linux cluster systems, largely due to
> a range of compilers available there.
>
> Anyway, keep me posted if you get anywhere with th
A while ago - approximately three years from now, i was looking for a
GPGPU capable solution for usage on FreeBSD and I stepped into the
compilers from PathScale which are supposed to handle OpenACC (like
OpenMP #pragma omp, but in this case #pragma openacc instead).
Well, there was hope since Pat
benchmark
tests and even the NAS test isn't very often present.
It is not easy to find a clear answer for questions like "what compiler
and compiler options has been used ... et cetera.
I'm impressed by the DragonFly approach and performance jump and I'm
disappointed having FreeBSD again far behind Linux - but it is the
PostgreSQL benchmark. It seems that in most cases, Ubuntu Linux is
always ahead of every other OS at the moment - if someone "believes" the
Phoronix benchmark results.
O. Hartmann
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 09/06/12 14:51, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 2012-09-05 16:45, O. Hartmann wrote:
> ...
>> Well, I tried LLVM/CLANG, but Cmake of the sources fairly fails many
>> checks especuially for OpenMP.
>
> Yes, it is currently not supported. I am not sure if there are seri
Hello Dimitry,
thanks for your response and patches.
On 09/06/12 14:51, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 2012-09-05 16:45, O. Hartmann wrote:
> ...
>> Well, I tried LLVM/CLANG, but Cmake of the sources fairly fails many
>> checks especuially for OpenMP.
>
> Yes, it is curren
BSD as
a scientific development platform.
There is still no suitable compiler for OpenCL out here for freeBSD, but
I have still the hope that LLVM can provide such a thing in the near future.
I cross post this posting also to "performance" in the hope finding some
people attract
Taken this message,
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTExOTE
it seems Intel does favour Linux for the new massiv parallel "Knights
Corner" add-on PCIe card. The news doesn't mention any other opensource
OS (like FreeBSD), but Phoronix is well known for its Linux relation.
So, doe
I read this week this article on Phoronix:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_r600g_llvm&num=1
Well, it looks promising to me in terms of having also OpenCL
capabilities for GPGPU, but as the report says, the code is not finished
and still in a very preliminary stage.
What is
Am 04/15/12 22:00, schrieb Garrett Cooper:
> On Apr 15, 2012, at 12:30 PM, O. Hartmann wrote:
>
>> Am 04/15/12 15:59, schrieb Richard Kojedzinszky:
>>> Thank you for the reply.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, dont know why, but on my xen virtualised environment,
&
, 2x1T sata disks in raid1, the host
> runs linux. I think with this hw the mentioned speed is really slow.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Kojedzinszky Richard
> Euronet Magyarorszag Informatikai Zrt.
>
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012, O. Hartmann wrote:
>
>> Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012
Am 04/08/12 14:53, schrieb Miroslav Lachman:
> Nikolay Denev wrote:
>> On Apr 6, 2012, at 2:48 PM, O. Hartmann wrote:
>>
>>> I'm looking for a way to force FreeBSD 10 to maintain/watch ECC errors
>>> reported by UEFI (or BIOS).
>>> Since ECC is
Am 04/05/12 20:03, schrieb Arnaud Lacombe:
> Hi folks,
>
> Over the past months, I ran on a couple of unused box the
> `hackbench'[HACKBENCH] benchmark used by the Linux folks for tracking
> down various kind of regression/improvement. `hackbench' is a
> scheduler + IPC test (socket xor pipe). It
I'm looking for a way to force FreeBSD 10 to maintain/watch ECC errors
reported by UEFI (or BIOS).
Since ECC is said to be essential for server systems both in buisness
and science and I do not question this, I was wondering if I can not
report ECC errors via a watchdog or UEFI (ACPI?) report to sy
Am 03/29/12 20:23, schrieb Ivan Klymenko:
> В Thu, 15 Dec 2011 01:02:03 +0100
> "O. Hartmann" пишет:
>
>> Just read this on
>>
>> phoronix.com
>>
>> Is this finally a chance to get GPGPU on FreeBSD natively supported?
>>
>> nVidia h
On 03/12/12 14:34, Eduardo Morras wrote:
> At 19:16 09/03/2012, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> On 9 March 2012 09:31, O. Hartmann
>> wrote:
>> > Well, having to pick up existing ideas and incarntions of those for
>> > Linux is always a pain in the ass, but necessary
On 03/09/12 14:35, Eduardo Morras wrote:
> At 12:36 09/03/2012, you wrote:
>> Sorry if you feel boring by those messages, but soem of us still get wet
>> eyes when it comes to OpenCL and LLVm (LLVM is supposed to become soon
>> the backend compiler in FreeBSD, as I understand). On PHORONIX I read
>
Sorry if you feel boring by those messages, but soem of us still get wet
eyes when it comes to OpenCL and LLVm (LLVM is supposed to become soon
the backend compiler in FreeBSD, as I understand). On PHORONIX I read
this message days ago:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTA2NzM
I
Am 01/28/12 23:40, schrieb Florian Smeets:
> [current@ bcc'ed to get a wider audience, please discuss on performance@]
>
> Hi,
>
> in recent times i saw a lot of threads where it was suggested people
> should switch from the ULE to the 4BSD scheduler. That got me thinking
> and i decided to run a
BSD and what not. I see that, from the theoretical
perspective of how LLVM works, their could be a chance to get FreeBSD on
par with Linux in GPGPU concerned applications, which becomes very, very
important now.
>
> Bye,
> Alexander.
Regards,
Oliver
>
> --
> Send via an Android devi
On 12/23/11 12:38, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
>
>
> On 23.12.11 12:48, O. Hartmann wrote:
>> Look at Steve Kargls problem. He investigated a SCHED_ULE problem in a
>> way that is far beyond enough! He gave tests, insights of his setup,
>> bad performance compared to SCHE
On 12/23/11 16:24, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 10:00:05AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 22, 2011 6:58:46 pm Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:44:14AM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
>>>> On 12/21/11 19:41, Alexa
On 12/23/11 15:47, Martin Sugioarto wrote:
> Am Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:18:03 +0200
> schrieb Daniel Kalchev :
>
>> The -RELEASE things is just a freeze (or, let's say tested freeze) of
>> the corresponding branch at some time. It is the code available and
>> tested at that time.
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
On 12/23/11 10:07, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
>
>
> On 23.12.11 03:17, O. Hartmann wrote:
>> Or even look at the thread regarding to SCHED_ULE. Why has a user,
>> experiencing really worse performance with SCHED_ULE, in a nearly
>> scientific manner some engineer the faul
On 12/23/11 07:47, Martin Sugioarto wrote:
> Am Fri, 23 Dec 2011 02:17:00 +0100
> schrieb "O. Hartmann" :
>
>> Benchmarks also could lead developers to look into more details of the
>> weak points of their OS, if they're open for that. Therefore,
>> bench
On 12/22/11 17:56, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Guys, girls, fuzzy creatures,
>
> This is by far the best example of a constructive email in this entire thread.
Agreed!
>
> If people would like to help, Erik here is exactly the kind of person
> with exactly the kind of software that needs a hand.
>
>
On 12/22/11 10:56, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
> On 22 December 2011 05:54, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
[...]
>> Any 'benchmark' has a goal. You first define the goal and then measure how
>> different contenders achieve it. Reaching the goal may have several
>> measurable metrics, that you will use to later
On 12/22/11 10:02, Johan Hendriks wrote:
> Stefan Esser schreef:
>> Am 21.12.2011 22:49, schrieb Johan Hendriks:
>>> Nice page, but one thing i do not get is the following.
>>>
>>> [quote]
>>> If you compare FreeBSD / GCC 4.2.1 against, for example, Ubuntu / GCC
>>> 4.7 then the results are unlikel
On 12/21/11 19:41, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> while the discussion continued here, some work started at some other place.
> Now... in case someone here is willing to help instead of talking, feel free
> to go to http://wiki.freebsd.org/BenchmarkAdvice and have a look what can be
> imp
On 12/21/11 00:29, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:54:23PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
>> On 12/20/11 22:45, Samuel J. Greear wrote:
>>> http://www.osnews.com/story/25334/DragonFly_BSD_MP_Performance_Significantly_Improved
>>>
>>> PostgreSQL
On 12/20/11 22:45, Samuel J. Greear wrote:
> http://www.osnews.com/story/25334/DragonFly_BSD_MP_Performance_Significantly_Improved
>
> PostgreSQL tests, see the linked PDF for #'s on FreeBSD, DragonFly, Linux
> and Solaris. Steps to reproduce these benchmarks provided.
>
> Sam
>
> On Tue, Dec 20
On 12/20/11 21:20, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
> Interestingly, while people seem to be (arguably rightly) focused on
> criticising Phoronix's benchmarking, nobody has offered an alternative
> benchmark; and while (again, arguably rightly) it is important to
> benchmark real world performance, equally,
On 12/20/11 10:01, Christer Solskogen wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Yerenkow
> wrote:
>> FreeBSD currently have very obscure, closed community. To get in touch, you
>> need to subscribe to several mail lists, constantly read them, I've just
>> found recently (my shame of cou
On 12/19/11 13:21, Andreas Nilsson wrote:
> On 19 dec 2011, at 12:50, "Samuel J. Greear" wrote:
>
>> 2011/12/19 Lev Serebryakov :
>>> Hello, Samuel.
>>> You wrote 15 декабря 2011 г., 16:32:47:
>>>
Other benchmarks in the Phoronix suite and their representations are
similarly flawed, _AL
On 12/19/11 09:27, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> Hello, Samuel.
> You wrote 15 декабря 2011 г., 16:32:47:
>
>> Other benchmarks in the Phoronix suite and their representations are
>> similarly flawed, _ALL_ of these results should be ignored and no time
>> should be wasted by any FreeBSD committer furt
On 12/18/11 03:37, Bruce Cran wrote:
> On 13/12/2011 09:00, Andrey Chernov wrote:
>> I observe ULE interactivity slowness even on single core machine
>> (Pentium 4) in very visible places, like 'ps ax' output stucks in the
>> middle by ~1 second. When I switch back to SHED_4BSD, all slowness is
>>
On 12/16/11 07:44, Joe Holden wrote:
> Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:32 AM, O. Hartmann
>> wrote:
>>> Just saw this shot benchmark on Phoronix dot com today:
>>>
>>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news
Am 12/15/11 14:58, schrieb Daniel Kalchev:
>
> On Dec 15, 2011, at 3:48 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>
> […]
>> That said: thrown out, data ignored, done.
>>
>> Now what? Where are we? We're right back where we were a day or two
>> ago; meaning no closer to solving the dilemma reported by users a
Am 12/15/11 14:51, schrieb Daniel Kalchev:
>
> On Dec 15, 2011, at 3:25 PM, Stefan Esser wrote:
>
>> Am 15.12.2011 11:10, schrieb Michael Larabel:
>>> No, the same hardware was used for each OS.
>>>
>>> In terms of the software, the stock software stack for each OS was used.
>>
>> Just curious: W
Just saw this shot benchmark on Phoronix dot com today:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAyNzA
It may be worth to discuss the sad performance of FBSD in some parts of
the benchmark. A difference of a factor 10 or 100 is simply far beyond
disapointing, it is more than inaccepta
Just read this on
phoronix.com
Is this finally a chance to get GPGPU on FreeBSD natively supported?
nVidia has a binary driver, supporting well their higher end graphics
cards on FreeBSD 64bit natively.
I do not understand much about the compiler itself, it's "nvcc" as far
as I know, and it is
On 12/12/11 16:51, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 02:47:57PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
>>
>>> Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on idprio 31 so this isn't an
>>> issue. And yes, there are cases where SCHED_ULE shows much better
>>> perfor
On 12/12/11 16:13, Vincent Hoffman wrote:
>
> On 12/12/2011 13:47, O. Hartmann wrote:
>
>>> Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on idprio 31 so this isn't an
>>> issue. And yes, there are cases where SCHED_ULE shows much better
>>> performance then SCH
On 12/12/11 18:06, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:18:35PM +, Bruce Cran wrote:
>> On 12/12/2011 15:51, Steve Kargl wrote:
>>> This comes up every 9 months or so, and must be approaching FAQ
>>> status. In a HPC environment, I recommend 4BSD. Depending on the
>>> workload, ULE
> Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on idprio 31 so this isn't an
> issue. And yes, there are cases where SCHED_ULE shows much better
> performance then SCHED_4BSD. [...]
Do we have any proof at hand for such cases where SCHED_ULE performs
much better than SCHED_4BSD? Whenever the subject c
On 10/24/11 12:44, Eduardo Morras wrote:
At 12:21 24/10/2011, Ivan Voras wrote:
On 21/10/2011 08:30, Hartmann, O. wrote:
> As I'm not a developer, but for scientific purposes highly
interested in
> using GPUs, the only way of doing HPC computing at the moment is with
> nVidias TESLA/nVidia consu
On 06/16/11 09:04, O. Hartmann wrote:
On 06/15/11 20:36, Doug Rabson wrote:
You could try using the standard header - that has inline
functions which should cover all the SSE instructions.
On 12 June 2011 17:43, Hartmann, O. wrote:
I use some numerical code utilizing the SIMD units of modern
On 06/15/11 20:36, Doug Rabson wrote:
You could try using the standard header - that has inline
functions which should cover all the SSE instructions.
On 12 June 2011 17:43, Hartmann, O. wrote:
I use some numerical code utilizing the SIMD units of modern X86
architectures. Code compiles well
I'm still hoping that FreeBSD could get back into it's shiny domain
being a highly reliable and performant Berkeley UNIX like OS, so for my
scientific purposes I'm still looking and watching what's going on.
I found on this slide show a talk, given by some AMD fellow, about an
OpenCL compiler:
On 11/19/10 10:46, Bruce Cran wrote:
[removed current@ and stable@ from the Cc list]
On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 15:41:29 +1100
Andrew Reilly wrote:
On Linux. Have you ever seen those sorts of UI problems on FreeBSD?
I don't watch much video on my systems, but I haven't seen that.
FreeBSD has always
On 11/18/10 19:55, Lucius Windschuh wrote:
2010/11/18 Andriy Gapon:
[Grouping of processes into TTY groups]
Well, I think that those improvements apply only to a very specific usage
pattern
and are greatly over-hyped.
But there are serious issue if you use FreeBSD as a desktop OS with
SMP an
On 11/18/10 19:28, Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 06:23:24PM + I heard the voice of
Alexander Best, and lo! it spake thus:
judging from the videos the changes are having a huge impact imo.
Well, my (admittedly limited, and certainly anecdotal) experience is
that Linux's
On 11/18/10 02:30, grarpamp wrote:
Just documenting regarding interactive performance things.
This one's from Linux.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_2637_video&num=1
Well,
it would be nice to have those improvements in FreeBSD, but I doubt this
will make it in due tim
István wrote:
> I guess it is not only for netpipe, it is doing a pretty decent job changing
> the packet size checking the performance so finally you have an overview
> about the size, lag, bw
>
> I like! :)
>
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
>> 2009/10/16 István :
>>>
Hongtao Yin wrote:
Hi,
I compared TCP performance between FreeBSD and Linux by running test tools
Netperf and Iperf with Intel NIC.
The kernels are full version and default values are used in the testing
except TCP Congestion Control algorithm set to Reno.
From the test results we can s
Steve Kargl wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 03:35:15PM +1100, Alex R wrote:
Steve Kargl wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 01:49:27PM +1100, Alex R wrote:
Steve Kargl wrote:
So, you have 4 cpus and 4 folding-at-home processes and you're
trying to use the system with other apps? Switch to 4B
Thomas Backman wrote:
On Oct 5, 2009, at 6:05 PM, Dieter wrote:
In message , Thomas
Backman writes:
I run 8.0-RC1/amd64 with ZFS on an A64 3200+ with 2GB RAM and an old
80GB 7200rpm disk.
My problem is that I get completely unacceptable latency on console IO
(both via SSH and serial console
Erik Trulsson wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 08:05:32PM +0200, Oliver Lehmann wrote:
>> Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>
>>> What mode do you have set for your controllers in BIOS?
>>> AHCI or IDE/Legacy/etc?
>> Yeah I read about this too but my BIOS offers only "RAID" and "SATA" -
>> tried both so I think
Martin MATO wrote:
>István a écrit :
>
> have you seen the previous mail about 8.0 and debug stuff?
>
> you might have overlooked it.
>
> yes UFS is not the fastest, it is FAT16, stick to that :)
>
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:49 PM, S4mmael [1] wrote:
>
>
>
> Since the article says that
Attilio Rao wrote:
> 2009/9/29 Randy Schultz :
>> - "Andrew Kuriger" spaketh thusly:
>>
>> |
>> | Since the article says that they left the debugging features on I
>> | think
>> | this has a bit to do with it. Obviously the testers didn't care to
>> | read the
>> | documentation, and didn't se
Andrew Kuriger wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:26:34 PDT, Dieter
> wrote:
>> In message ,
>> Francisco Reyes writes:
>>> Steven Hartland writes:
>>>
Just noticed the following posted on phoronix:
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=freebsd8_ubuntu910&num=1
Comments?
Richard Tector wrote:
> O. Hartmann wrote:
>> When I read this posting I was quite happy having found a possible
>> solution, but I can't find the above mentioned OID, FreeBSD
>> 8.0-CURRENT/amd64 (running on this box) shows only "hw.ata.wc: 1" as
>>
Bradley Radjoo wrote:
Thanks very much Richard,
(They are 2 X 73Gig Ultra 320 scsi SAS drives)
BUT seems that even with the UP kernel, I still get issues..
This is what I see in dmesg :
mpt0: port 0xec00-0xecff mem
0xdfcec000-0xdfce,0xdfcf-0xdfcf irq 15 at device 0.0 on pci5
mpt0:
Ivan Voras wrote:
...
OTOH if the goal is to measure "operating system" performance, this
must also include the compiler, libraries and all. (for example, what
does Solaris default to nowadays? I think it ships with gcc but not as
default). The hold on gcc 4.3 in FreeBSD is, after all, politica
Kris Kennaway wrote:
[SCHNIPP]
* 7.0 with ULE has a bug on this workload (actually to do with workloads
involving high interrupt rates). It is fixed in 8.0.
will this patch also be available for 7.0?
Regards,
Oliver
___
freebsd-performance@freebs
Mike Tancsa wrote:
> At 04:38 AM 3/2/2007, O. Hartmann wrote:
>> The last days I tried to figure out why some of my lab's FreeBSD
>> boxes and also mine at home seem to be outperformed by some Linux
>> setups around here and I saw something interesting.
>>
>>
The last days I tried to figure out why some of my lab's FreeBSD boxes
and also mine at home seem to be outperformed by some Linux setups
around here and I saw something interesting.
On my lab's FreeBSD 6.2/i386 box (ASUS P4P800, ICH5 with two SATA 150
ports, two SATA 300 drives attached) I co
Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 04:43:49PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 11:52:47AM -0200, Marcelo Gardini do Amaral wrote:
The results were discussed in the following threads:
I see the speed differences are major, but don't
Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 11:52:47AM -0200, Marcelo Gardini do Amaral wrote:
The results were discussed in the following threads:
I see the speed differences are major, but don't have a good idea
of what 15,000 DNS queries per second means. Is the following
interpretati
Marcelo Gardini do Amaral wrote:
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 02:52:33PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
These results looks very puzzling to me.
As far as I know, multithreading and/or multiprocessors should perform
better anyway than a single threaded application within other
applications on an UP box
Marcelo Gardini do Amaral wrote:
>> FYI: In response to feedback from ISC, there are UDP transmit optimizations
>> in FreeBSD 7.x. These have a relatively minor performance impact for
>> single-threaded applications, but in the special case of BIND accessing a
>> single UDP socket from many dif
77 matches
Mail list logo
