On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 06:27:47PM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> Well, I have tracked the problem down a bit. It happens when the system
> runs out of memory and starts to use the swap file. The glimpse indexing
> operation is very memory intensive and under V6 it simply crawls when it
> starts pa
On Sun, 2006-Feb-12 18:27:47 -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>This is not really a surprise. I know how running out of memory slows
>things down. What does bother me is why it went from 6 hours in V4 14
>hours on V6.
It could be that glimpse's memory access pattern makes it very
sensitive to the avail
> Kevin Oberman wrote:
> I recently upgraded my last desktop system from 4.11-Stable to
> 6.0-Stable. I did an update to 5.3 then to RELENG_5,
> RELENG_6_0_0_RELEASE and on to RELENG6_0.
>
> This system has been updated regularly from the days of at least 4.1.
> The hardware is a 1GHz PIII with an
> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:52:03 -0500
> From: Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> --45Z9DzgjV8m4Oswq
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 04:45:47PM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>
On Wed, 2005-Dec-14 16:17:38 -0700, Scott Long wrote:
>Also, taking out CPU_I586 is usually a bad idea. It offers no
>performance penalties (unlike CPU_I386 and maybe CPU_I486), but
>enables things like optimized bcopy.
This doesn't quite mesh with my reading of -current and -stable.
The follow
Kevin Oberman wrote:
Scott Long wrote:
Also, taking out CPU_I586 is usually a bad idea. It offers no
performance penalties (unlike CPU_I386 and maybe CPU_I486), but
enables things like optimized bcopy.
Ahh, This is the sort of thing I never realized. Is there anything in
the handbook that co
Scott Long wrote:
Also, taking out CPU_I586 is usually a bad idea. It offers no
performance penalties (unlike CPU_I386 and maybe CPU_I486), but
enables things like optimized bcopy.
Is that documented? In /sys/i386/conf/NOTES I see:
# You must specify at least one CPU (the one you intend to
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 04:45:47PM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:34:04 -0500
> > From: Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 04:26:18PM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> >
> > > I am attaching a dmesg. I do have a few of drivers (uhci, pcm, psm,
> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:34:04 -0500
> From: Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 04:26:18PM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>
> > I am attaching a dmesg. I do have a few of drivers (uhci, pcm, psm,
> > atkbd0 and ichsmb) that are still marked as GIANT-LOCKED, but I'm not
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 04:26:18PM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> I am attaching a dmesg. I do have a few of drivers (uhci, pcm, psm,
> atkbd0 and ichsmb) that are still marked as GIANT-LOCKED, but I'm not
> using the USB very often. And I'm not using pcm or ichsmb during the
> dump, either. I thin
> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:17:38 -0700
> From: Scott Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Kevin Oberman wrote:
>
> > I recently upgraded my last desktop system from 4.11-Stable to
> > 6.0-Stable. I did an update to 5.3 then to RELENG_5,
> > RELENG_6_0_0_RELEASE and on to RELENG6_0.
> >
> > This system
Kevin Oberman wrote:
I recently upgraded my last desktop system from 4.11-Stable to
6.0-Stable. I did an update to 5.3 then to RELENG_5,
RELENG_6_0_0_RELEASE and on to RELENG6_0.
This system has been updated regularly from the days of at least 4.1.
The hardware is a 1GHz PIII with an ICH2 chips
I recently upgraded my last desktop system from 4.11-Stable to
6.0-Stable. I did an update to 5.3 then to RELENG_5,
RELENG_6_0_0_RELEASE and on to RELENG6_0.
This system has been updated regularly from the days of at least 4.1.
The hardware is a 1GHz PIII with an ICH2 chipset. 256 MB of memory.
13 matches
Mail list logo
