Joshua Coombs wrote:
As a follow up:
I setup a fresh 7.0 install in a VM and played with it. Using my
make.conf, I showed cc1 using 130MB when compiling insn-attrtab.c. I
tweaked the VM conf down to 32MB of RAM and redid the compile, and other
than taking forever due to swapping, it again
As a follow up:
I setup a fresh 7.0 install in a VM and played with it. Using my
make.conf, I showed cc1 using 130MB when compiling insn-attrtab.c. I
tweaked the VM conf down to 32MB of RAM and redid the compile, and other
than taking forever due to swapping, it again churned past
insn-attr
Jason Evans wrote:
cc1 was only trying to request 130MB, my datasize is 512MB, why did it
fail?
It looks to me like gcc is trying to allocate a single 130MiB object,
but you don't say anything about how much memory is already in use. It
may well be that there are no remaining places in the m
his much
RAM to build.
(I also don't like the 'remove all CFLAGS' "fix" suggestion, something
is broken if a buildworld can't complete on a stock kernel with sane
CFLAGS. In my case, I run -Os -pipe, am I now to understand that any
CFL
m NewEgg should let me run the I-RAM on my empty ATA
controller, giving me 4GB of swap running as fast as the machine can
take it. Depending on how it behaves, I may track down a 2MB ISA VGA
card again and throw KDE4 on it just to be truly insane. They say it's
much better about
Brian wrote:
Would that be a multiday buildworld?
Brian
10 days on average. : ) I'm trying a 7 build without -pipe to see if I
can squeak it through with 64MB RAM + 384MB swap, I'd much prefer not
having to do a dump/restore to reallocate space for more swap. I'm
almost thinking a non -p
now got a Cyrix 486DrX-2 66 installed in place of my Am386DX-40, which
supports CMPXCHG as well as ID'ing as a 486 so I don't need to do any
tweaking to stay running.
If I can get another viable 386DX box reassembled I'll see if 7 can be
pr
MaXX wrote:
Hi list,
I have an old netfinity 7000 (Quad PIII 500, 1Gb RAM) running 6.2 at the
moment. I was wondering if it will take benefit of all the SMP improvement of 7
or is it too old? It runs a few postgresql databases, peak loads in the 2 to 4
range.
As I do not have another equival
to 6-stable from yesterday, same behavior. After
the dump, the system appears solid, no other errors, so I'm guessing
it's just a problem with how the card is initialized, FreeBSD corrects
it and moves on.
Should I be more concerned, or consider it a quirk of the machine?
Jos
"Vivek Khera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Dec 6, 2005, at 7:37 AM, Joshua Coombs wrote:
Ok, lemmie just point out that I'm already running 6.0, just to
eliminate that issue.
So you were not truthful about running a 386...
No,
"Igor Robul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 09:20:28PM -0500, Joshua Coombs wrote:
#optionsZERO_COPY_SOCKETS
What's the status of this in 6.0-R and 6-stable? The idea of
avoiding
memory copies when
#optionsZERO_COPY_SOCKETS
What's the status of this in 6.0-R and 6-stable? The idea of avoiding
memory copies when possible seems really appealing for my 386, on
which any little boost is significant. : )
Joshua C
;ll move it through fairly quickly.
For what it's worth, on UP, my 386 (stop laughing) is showing twice
the inbound and outbound tcp throughput across multiple apps compared
to 4.11. Disk throughput is slightly higher, but nothing super
impressive. If 6.0 can show gains on a 386, that te
I see it's gone quiet on the 686B front, this due to a lack of testers and
if so, what do I need to do to provide usefull info?
Joshua Coombs
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
14 matches
Mail list logo
