On Wednesday 17 May 2006 17:06, martinko wrote:
> i remember from mailing lists there used to be a problem with using "-j"
> while compiling kernel or world or ports or sth. is it resolved now pls?
"make -j N" has never been a supported option for ports. It is supported
for buildworld and buildk
Bill Moran wrote:
> On Mon, 15 May 2006 11:12:33 +0100
> Ashley Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I've read the following snippet out of the handbook hundreds of times and
>> still don't understand it. I even asked one of the developers I work with
>> and he was baffled too.
>>
>>>
On Monday 15 May 2006 11:23, Richard Collyer wrote:
> The way I understand it is that 1 core would do this...
>
> compile read disk compile read disk ... compile
>
> It wont be reading when it is compiling and cant compile when its
> reading so if you do -j 2 even on a single core ma
On Mon, 15 May 2006 11:12:33 +0100
Ashley Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I've read the following snippet out of the handbook hundreds of times and
> still don't understand it. I even asked one of the developers I work with
> and he was baffled too.
>
> > It is now possible to speci
Ashley Moran wrote:
Hi
I've read the following snippet out of the handbook hundreds of times and
still don't understand it. I even asked one of the developers I work with
and he was baffled too.
It is now possible to specify a -j option to make which will cause it to
spawn several simultan
PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 2:33 AM
Subject: Re: Please explain.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 2 Major Issues:
> >
> > - FreeBSD has a processor affinity design issue
>
>
> thanks for the no
ent I have already received my
answers.
- Original Message -
From: "Technical Director" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 7:13 AM
Subject: Re: P
er than yelling the word troll or other things.
FreeBSD is aware of the issues apparently and is working.
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Watson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: Please explain.
>
Tom Rhodes wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 17:14:22 +0200
Miguel Mendez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 16:57:00 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dag-Erling Smørgrav) wrote:
Hi,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
It appears that FreeBSD have a clear Multi-threading lock-in issue
that needs to be fixed
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 17:14:22 +0200
Miguel Mendez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 16:57:00 +0200
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dag-Erling Smørgrav) wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > It appears that FreeBSD have a clear Multi-threading lock-in issue
> > > that needs to
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 16:57:00 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dag-Erling Smørgrav) wrote:
Hi,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It appears that FreeBSD have a clear Multi-threading lock-in issue
> > that needs to be fixed. Not work arounds. According to many freebsd
> > developers nobody simply wants to
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It appears that FreeBSD have a clear Multi-threading lock-in issue
> that needs to be fixed. Not work arounds. According to many freebsd
> developers nobody simply wants to fix this, is it true that the
> current smp work are just 'work-arounds' not real fixing?
Did D
nds'.
>
>
> sorry and thanks
> - Original Message -
> From: "Chris Laverdure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, S
noticed myself and many high-scale
> developers.
>
> Thank you
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "steveb99" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent:
In the last episode (Sep 18), [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Your taking it the wrong way, I was simply asking a question to the
> developers to confirm this.
>
> I have standardized on FreeBSD.
>
> I apologized if I made it seem like I was trolling, not my intention.
>
> If a business were to standa
Hi,
Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, fair enough but it still comes down to if you have a other OS
which does what you need than use that OS.
SMP support is only one thing to consider.
But perhaps you require the BSD license for you biz?
Actually I'm not very knowledged (fa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your taking it the wrong way, I was simply asking a question to the
developers to confirm this.
I have standardized on FreeBSD.
I apologized if I made it seem like I was trolling, not my intention.
If a business were to standardize on FreeBSD, they would love to know if the
I never saw this email from timh so I'm replying to this reply instead..
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
processor affinity design issue..
>>
i.e.. processes stay on the cpu they are
spawned on..which is a big problem for mysql which explains why it
performs better on other systems.
yes We ALL kn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2 Major Issues:
- FreeBSD has a processor affinity design issue
thanks for the non combatative and diplomatically styled message?
- The core kernel issues with FreeBSD is the horrible threading
support.There is so much crap in FreeBSD kernel. The multithreading issue in
fr
: Saturday, September 18, 2004 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: Please explain.
> On Sun, 2004-09-19 at 02:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Ask the FreeBSD developers, any of them with honesty should tell you or
> > proof me false. I dare you to proof this false, I would be so happy if
you
>
On Sun, 2004-09-19 at 02:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ask the FreeBSD developers, any of them with honesty should tell you or
> proof me false. I dare you to proof this false, I would be so happy if you
> did. Just because I'm using MS Mailer does not reflect whom I am. I have
> only 1 MS worksta
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 8:09 PM
Subject: RE: Please explain.
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] O
been an issue for so long.
>
> thanks,
> tim h.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "stheg olloydson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 7:05 PM
> Subject: Re: P
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Emanuel Strobl
> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 5:41 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Plea
Am Sonntag, 19. September 2004 01:08 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> 2 Major Issues:
>
> - FreeBSD has a processor affinity design issue
>
> - The core kernel issues with FreeBSD is the horrible threading
> support.There is so much crap in FreeBSD kernel. The multithreading issue
> in freebsd has been
>From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.
>X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - ns0.secureanonymous.com
>X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - freebsd.org
>X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller
26 matches
Mail list logo
