Here's alan answer...
Hetz
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: linux 2.4.20-pre?-ac? kernels
Date: Friday 27 September 2002 01:02
From: Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: Ariel Biener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
TINC
>The importance of NFS performance and stability
Starting to download from... now ;)
Enjoy,
Adir.
=
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Oded Arbel wrote:
> You are talking about taking control of another person's creation w/o
> that persons agreement (!!) most people would call that outright theft -
Ayn Rand, too.
--- Omer
the null contributor t
On Thursday 26 September 2002 16:46, guy keren wrote:
> dear people,
>
> i think there's some great confusion here about the usa of the term
> 'stable'.
>
> ariel (at least as far as i know) runs systems that bear a rather heavy
> load over network connections. most people run machines that do not
On 26 Sep 2002, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> I have little experience with BSD. Please enlighten me, what other
> architectures besides x86 are supported?
NetBSD is probably the most portable OS (when considering a complete OS,
not just a kernel). Although debian may nt be so far behind...
--
Tzaf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 26 September 2002 22:17, you wrote:
> NB: marked OT with respect to the actual topic of the thread. Not entirely
> OT for the list, I suppose.
>
> Mark Veltzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> ... and I will continue feeding trolls who cont
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 26 September 2002 21:50, you wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Mark Veltzer wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Here are my thoughts on the matter (as if anyone cares what they
> > are...:):
> >
> > 1. No comme
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002, Mark Veltzer wrote about "Re: linux 2.4.20-pre?-ac? kernels":
> 10. What (9) means is that RH kernels will be more stable than vanilla
> kernels only if:
> a. RH don't do a lot of changes.
> b. the changes are not of great depth.
> c. the fixes are obvious.
NB: marked OT with respect to the actual topic of the thread. Not entirely
OT for the list, I suppose.
Mark Veltzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
.. and I will continue feeding trolls who contribute to the kernel ;-)
> 1. No commercial company has EVER produced a portable kernel
I would give
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002, Ariel Biener wrote about "Re: linux 2.4.20-pre?-ac? kernels":
>I'll make it to the point. It seems that from the reactions (except
> Guy) I got on this list, no one really understands the nature of what a
> production server means in terms of performance, while you do un
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Mark Veltzer wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Here are my thoughts on the matter (as if anyone cares what they are...:):
>
> 1. No commercial company has EVER produced a portable kernel (a real portable
> kernel - no branches like solaris or window
On 2002-01-25, Daniel Pearson wrote:
[snip]
> As you may have guessed, I am able to successfully connect to and use the
> Internet via DSL. The problem is that the connection suddenly stops working at
> rather frequent, but very irregular intervals. When this happens packets don't
> go through a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Here are my thoughts on the matter (as if anyone cares what they are...:):
1. No commercial company has EVER produced a portable kernel (a real portable
kernel - no branches like solaris or windows on alpha). This is probably due
to the patience on
On Thu, 2002-09-26 at 19:49, Ariel Biener wrote:
>
> Would this count as huge ?
>
> 17: 186608169 186641281 IO-APIC-level eth1
>
> 7:47pm up 1 day, 28 min, 5 users, load average: 0.23, 0.82, 1.25
>
> If I count it right, this is:
>
> 186608169/86428 int/sec per cpu, that is 2159 in
Hi Mark
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Hetz Ben Hamo wrote:
> > The statistics become much higher when you realize that:
> > 1. Redhat wants to change the buggy 2.96 compiler (which actually has about
> > 5 versions I am ware of that they refuse to admit or tag as different
> > versions).
Please get some
Shlomi Fish wrote:
>Hi Oded!
>
>I love it that people decide the victim is the one responsible.
>
I have not examined all the evidence, but even judging from just what
you said my opinion is that you are in the wrong (and like any human,
I'm sure you are at least just a tiny bit biased in your
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Moshe Kaminsky wrote:
> Guy Baruch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [25/09/02 12:27]:
> >
> > There's something in this thread I may be a bit too simple to understand.
> >
> > I assume bidi support is really better than in current products, are the
> > algorithms
> > patented?
> This ques
On 26 Sep 2002, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
> What device is used for networking?
>
> 100Mbit/s on most regular NICs and drivers will kill the system because
> of interrupt livelock. You *might* benefit alot from using the NAPI
I said 50Mbit/s in + 50Mbit/s out at peaks, 20Mbit/s in 20Mbit/s out
ave
On Thu, 2002-09-26 at 18:43, Ariel Biener wrote:
>
> The overview I gave was to explain a pattern of behaviour we have with
> really stressed servers here. The service I experienced problem with is
> different, and since it's part of a non-disclosure agreement we have, I
> cannot specify more. Wh
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> Now, could you explain furtherm, if the setup is already working, why
> are you considering upgrading the kernel? Are there specific bottle
> necks that you're running into?
The overview I gave was to explain a pattern of behaviour we have with
reall
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 06:18:58PM +0300, Ariel Biener wrote:
[snipped]
>I send very few messages to this list. We experienced with this for
> over a year till I sent this mail. I generally do not tend to shoot up
> unsubstantiated claims in the air and waste everyone's time.
Ariel,
Thank
On 26 Sep 2002, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
Hi,
I'll make it to the point. It seems that from the reactions (except
Guy) I got on this list, no one really understands the nature of what a
production server means in terms of performance, while you do understand
what it means in terms of accoun
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> various versions of Redhat. I suspect that some of the people trashing Red-
> Hat are not actually using it, and are just assuming things.
I think it's safe to say I wouldn't dare "assuming" things on a public
mailing list.
> all that serious (reiserfs
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 05:40:33PM +0300, guy keren wrote:
>
> now, here is a question for those 'in the know' - how far is alan cox
> involved in choosing what patches go into redhat's kernel version, since
> he begun working for them? or, who in redhat decides on that?
He has been on record
voguemaster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> True, but then how would you explain the article by Moshe ? He tested several
> 2.4 kernels and the RH 7.2 kernel, while a bit slower, was stable.
Lies, damn lies, statistics, and benchmarks... Please don't compare
apples and oranges.
Moshe's benchmarks
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, voguemaster wrote:
> True, but then how would you explain the article by Moshe ? He tested several
> 2.4 kernels and the RH 7.2 kernel, while a bit slower, was stable.
different usage patterns. btw, i didn't read the article. thought it does
not matter - the fact that it w
26/09/02 15:46:11, guy keren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>dear people,
>
>i think there's some great confusion here about the usa of the term
>'stable'.
>
>ariel (at least as far as i know) runs systems that bear a rather heavy
>load over network connections. most people run machines that do n
dear people,
i think there's some great confusion here about the usa of the term
'stable'.
ariel (at least as far as i know) runs systems that bear a rather heavy
load over network connections. most people run machines that do not bear
that heavy load. thus, your definition of 'stable' is qu
I wanna say that people need to base their claims on facts instead of
flailing their arms in the air(less they would hit someone).
In the past i only worked with Redhat Distributions (underline), which
is quite different then just referring to a specific kernel version
which may or may not have so
Ariel Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
>
>
>>shape or form. Why don't you use the vendor's kernels? For production
>>use, that's definitely the safest bet.
>
>
> That is completely untrue, and also missleading to the whole community
> reading this thread. It is a sad
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 12:58:08PM +0300, Ariel Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
>
> > shape or form. Why don't you use the vendor's kernels? For production
> > use, that's definitely the safest bet.
>
> That is completely untrue, and also missleading to the whole comm
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002, Ariel Biener wrote about "Re: linux 2.4.20-pre?-ac? kernels":
> That is completely untrue, and also missleading to the whole community
> reading this thread. It is a sad fact that for example, RedHat kernels
> have a zillion of badly tested or even not that patches, which Lin
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> shape or form. Why don't you use the vendor's kernels? For production
> use, that's definitely the safest bet.
That is completely untrue, and also missleading to the whole community
reading this thread. It is a sad fact that for example, RedHat kerne
Hi Oded!
I love it that people decide the victim is the one responsible. Let me
explain some things:
1. I was offered to use BitKeeper and bkbits.net at terms I could accept
(i.e: I sent the patchsets to openlogging.org, don't see the source (even
though the site says otherwise), etc.). I happi
34 matches
Mail list logo
