Greetings all and my apologies for cross posting!
There seems to be a confusion regarding the ABI change in FreeBSD 9
and if this affects the usual upgrade path which includes a full port
rebuild.
The relevant post is here: http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=28831
Frankly, I am also conf
On Wednesday, January 11, 2012 4:11:10 pm Rob Clark wrote:
> System: Dell 600sc
> Currently running: 8.2-RELEASE
>
> In attempting to update this system to 8-STABLE I did
> what I usually do to update a system (see below).
> make buildworld completes successfully, but make
> buildkernel does not.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
JFYI for those of you who aren't subscribed to the announce@ mailing
list... 9.0-RELEASE is, finally, announced. The announcement message
is available here:
http://www.freebsd.org/releases/9.0R/announce.html
Lots of you noticed that the 9.0-RE
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 21:52:28 -0600
Andre Goree wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>
> > System: Dell 600sc
> > Currently running: 8.2-RELEASE
> >
> > In attempting to update this system to 8-STABLE I did
> > what I usually do to update a system (see below).
> > make buil
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:15:50 -0500
John Baldwin wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 11, 2012 4:11:10 pm Rob Clark wrote:
> > System: Dell 600sc
> > Currently running: 8.2-RELEASE
> >
> > In attempting to update this system to 8-STABLE I did
> > what I usually do to update a system (see below).
> > ma
>> chflags -R noschg /usr/obj/usr
>> rm -rf /usr/obj/usr
It's much faster to do:
/bin/rm -rf ${obj}/* 2> /dev/null || /bin/chflags -R 0 ${obj}/* &&
/bin/rm -rf ${obj}/*
--
You can observe a lot just by watching. -- Yogi Berra
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledg
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>>> chflags -R noschg /usr/obj/usr
>>> rm -rf /usr/obj/usr
>
> It's much faster to do:
>
> /bin/rm -rf ${obj}/* 2> /dev/null || /bin/chflags -R 0 ${obj}/* &&
> /bin/rm -rf ${obj}/*
+1. And it's faster yet when you can run parallel copies of rm
On 01/12/2012 09:11 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
+1. And it's faster yet when you can run parallel copies of rm on
different portions of the directory tree (e.g. xargs, find [..] -exec)
as rm is O(n).
I have always wondered about that! I thought that the main bottleneck
in "rm -r" might be dele
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 19:11:54 -0800
Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Doug Barton
> wrote:
> >
> >>> chflags -R noschg /usr/obj/usr
> >>> rm -rf /usr/obj/usr
> >
> > It's much faster to do:
> >
> > /bin/rm -rf ${obj}/* 2> /dev/null || /bin/chflags -R 0 ${obj}/* &&
> > /bin/
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:23 PM, Stephen Montgomery-Smith
wrote:
> On 01/12/2012 09:11 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>
>> +1. And it's faster yet when you can run parallel copies of rm on
>> different portions of the directory tree (e.g. xargs, find [..] -exec)
>> as rm is O(n).
>
>
> I have always wo
On 01/12/2012 20:10, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> When I did
> stuff in parallel (have 8 regular cores, 8 SMT cores), the process
> took less than an hour to complete.
Sounds like you should get to work figuring out how to optimize rm to
take advantage of this. :)
Doug
--
You can observe a
11 matches
Mail list logo
