Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default

2011-12-24 Thread Daniel Kalchev
On Dec 24, 2011, at 12:49 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > Do you not have access to anything with 8 CPUs in it? It'd be nice to > get clarification that this indeed was fixed. I offered to do tests on 4x8 core Opteron system (32 cores total), but was discouraged that contention would be too much and

Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default

2011-12-24 Thread Stefan Esser
Am 24.12.2011 00:02, schrieb Andriy Gapon: > on 24/12/2011 00:49 Adrian Chadd said the following: >> Does ULE care (much) if the nodes are hyperthreading or real cores? >> Would that play a part in what it tries to schedule/spread? > > An answer to this part from the theory. > ULE does care about

Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default

2011-12-24 Thread Adrian Chadd
My rule is "break it any way you can and see if you can figure out why." Don't be discouraged. You may find some of the folk at yahoo are interested. Adrian On 24 December 2011 03:00, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > On Dec 24, 2011, at 12:49 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > >> Do you not have access to any

Re: FLAME - security advisories on the 23rd ? uncool idea is uncool

2011-12-24 Thread Kurt Buff
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 08:07, Damien Fleuriot wrote: > Hey up list, > > Look, just a rant here. > > > Who in *HELL* thought it would be a cool idea to release no less than > FOUR security advisories today ? I'm guessing the Security Officer and those with whom he consults. Just a thought, since

Re: FLAME - security advisories on the 23rd ? uncool idea is uncool

2011-12-24 Thread Jeremy Chadwick
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 08:36:15AM -0800, Kurt Buff wrote: > On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 08:07, Damien Fleuriot wrote: > > Hey up list, > > > > Look, just a rant here. > > > > > > Who in *HELL* thought it would be a cool idea to release no less than > > FOUR security advisories today ? > > I'm guessi

Re: FLAME - security advisories on the 23rd ? uncool idea is uncool

2011-12-24 Thread Kurt Buff
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 09:25, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > > While this is generally true, the BIND issue was absolutely not > addressed "as fast as possible".  I guess you weren't aware that it was > announced publicly literally over a month ago: > > https://www.isc.org/software/bind/advisories/cve

Re: FLAME - security advisories on the 23rd ? uncool idea is uncool

2011-12-24 Thread Chris Rees
On 23 Dec 2011 18:56, "George Kontostanos" wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Matthew Seaman > wrote: > > On 23/12/2011 18:05, George Kontostanos wrote: > >> Are all cvs mirror servers updated regarding these changes ? > >> > >> ANYBODY > > > > Should have by now. Commits usually t