If you use real hardware bigmen is default.
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 19:57 -0500, "Amit Kulkarni"
wrote:
> Henning,
>
> Hey you guys are going to bump up the default and enable bigmem as
> default too? :) Is it scheduled for this hackathon?
>
>
> Daniel,
>
> Thanks, I will look into that. Undeadly
[IMAGE]
Chers clients !
---
Pour la Nouvelle security de 2011 , Nous avons recemment examine votre
compte et nous avons besoin de plus d'informations sur votre entreprise
pour nous permettre de fournir un service ininterrompu. Jusqu a ce que
nous pouvons recueillir cette information,
Henning,
Hey you guys are going to bump up the default and enable bigmem as
default too? :) Is it scheduled for this hackathon?
Daniel,
Thanks, I will look into that. Undeadly is good.
> OK,
>
> I may be way off track and totally wrong here, but isn't that worked Bob did
> may be two hacketon
2011/3/30 Peter Hallin
> Ok, now we have been doing some testing and probably found the problem.
>
> All tests were done on the same machine with an Intel S5000VSA MB and a
> Xeon E5420 2,5 Ghz processor, running OpenBSD 4.8 amd64 GENERIC (SP
> kernel).
>
> We tested the performance with iperf, r
where? please educate me.
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Amit Kulkarni [2011-03-31 00:45]:
>> Nothing directly, just observing a comparison of default choice.
>> OpenBSD opts for one strategy (bufcache = 10%) and Opensolaris opts
>> for another (bufcache close to 100%
On 3/30/11 7:23 PM, Scott McEachern wrote:
On 03/30/11 19:18, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Amit Kulkarni [2011-03-31 01:09]:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Henning
Brauer wrote:
* Amit Kulkarni [2011-03-31 00:45]:
Nothing directly, just observing a comparison of default choice.
OpenBSD opts for
* Scott McEachern [2011-03-31 01:26]:
> And what are we readers to wait for, anyway?
the bump.
--
Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org
BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services
Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting
On 03/30/11 19:18, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Amit Kulkarni [2011-03-31 01:09]:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Amit Kulkarni [2011-03-31 00:45]:
Nothing directly, just observing a comparison of default choice.
OpenBSD opts for one strategy (bufcache = 10%) and Opensol
* Amit Kulkarni [2011-03-31 01:09]:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > * Amit Kulkarni [2011-03-31 00:45]:
> >> Nothing directly, just observing a comparison of default choice.
> >> OpenBSD opts for one strategy (bufcache = 10%) and Opensolaris opts
> >> for another (bu
[IMAGE]
Pms Capacitacisn Efectiva de Mixico le presenta este programa:
Convencisn Nacional Secretarmas Ejecutivas y Asistentes 2011
22-23 de Julio, Playa del Carmen
Exclusivas conferencias presentadas por 3 Expertos Expositores
Empresa Registrada ante la STPS Reg. COLG640205CP30005
Smguenos e
* Amit Kulkarni [2011-03-31 00:45]:
> Nothing directly, just observing a comparison of default choice.
> OpenBSD opts for one strategy (bufcache = 10%) and Opensolaris opts
> for another (bufcache close to 100%).
you are wrong.
--
Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org
BS Web Service
Nothing directly, just observing a comparison of default choice.
OpenBSD opts for one strategy (bufcache = 10%) and Opensolaris opts
for another (bufcache close to 100%).
> * Amit Kulkarni [2011-03-30 23:19]:
>> Might be okay for high physical memory machines but not low. I
>> remember Opensolari
* Amit Kulkarni [2011-03-30 23:19]:
> Might be okay for high physical memory machines but not low. I
> remember Opensolaris also filled out bufcache for ZFS, which was a
> bloated pig.
and ClaimsToBeOpen-Solaris' bufcache allocation strategies have
exactly what to do with openbsd's?
--
Henning
>> OpenBSD just returns kernel page memory very very quickly, so it is
>> difficult for it to consume more :). But seriously, after this
>> compile, kernel was holding onto some memory. At idle (after
>> compilation) it was an excess of 300-500M more, instead of 1-1.3G, it
>> was around 1.7G. Opens
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 06:05:42PM +0100, iproudlyeat...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 30 March 2011 09:06, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> > We don't support pciide at cardbus yet.
> > The cardbus code ideally needs to be folded into the pci
> > code, this would solve these kinds of problems but is quite painful
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 22:12:56 +0200
Benny Lofgren wrote:
> On 2011-03-30 17.48, Jeff Ross wrote:
> > On 03/30/11 05:21, Tony Berth wrote:
> > Worse, an amd64 kernel looking at 8GB of real, physical ram only
> > makes a wee bit under 3GB available.
> > real mem = 3220111360 (3070MB)
> > avail mem
I currently run the OpenBSD torrent tracker at
http://openbsd.somedomain.net
as well as the primary seeder but due to external circumstances I am no
longer able to continue hosting it.
I am looking for someone interested and able to take this over.
I am more than happy to help with administrat
On 2011-03-30 17.48, Jeff Ross wrote:
> On 03/30/11 05:21, Tony Berth wrote:
>> I can't??? So the limit of 4G physical memory still exists? And why
>> was this
>> statement made from 4.4 release?
>
> Worse, an amd64 kernel looking at 8GB of real, physical ram only makes a
> wee bit under 3GB avail
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 13:15:10 -0500
Amit Kulkarni wrote:
> OpenBSD just returns kernel page memory very very quickly, so it is
> difficult for it to consume more :). But seriously, after this
> compile, kernel was holding onto some memory. At idle (after
> compilation) it was an excess of 300-500M
I have loaded the machine with processes and I think it consumed
slightly more than 4G physical, running 3 compiles at once. OpenBSD
userland (make -j4) + Clang/LLVM (make -j4) + ITK (make -j4). I was
checking with top -s3 -1.
OpenBSD just returns kernel page memory very very quickly, so it is
dif
On 30 March 2011 09:06, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> We don't support pciide at cardbus yet.
> The cardbus code ideally needs to be folded into the pci
> code, this would solve these kinds of problems but is quite painful
> to do.
Would an expresscard work?
Having problems viewing this email? Please click here.For enquiry, please send
email to powert...@epromotion.com.hk
e&g!f3i1h.d;%d8 ge'e.9o< h+ f f-$.e&f
d;;d=f %h)"h+ i;i5h3 powert...@epromotion.com.hk
e&f f(d8
f3e
f6e0fegd?!d;6o< h+ f ih#
Please click here if the e-mail below is not displayed correctly
Cast in Style
www.castinstyle.co.uk
Beautiful Cast Iron Home and Garden Ware
IT'S THE LAST DAY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE - ENDS TOMORROW
For the whole of March we are giving away FREE products. Buy 5 of
anything you like on our web site
On 03/30/11 05:21, Tony Berth wrote:
I can't??? So the limit of 4G physical memory still exists? And why was this
statement made from 4.4 release?
Worse, an amd64 kernel looking at 8GB of real, physical ram only makes a
wee bit under 3GB available.
OpenBSD 4.9-current (GENERIC.MP) #852: Sun
Hello,
I am having problems with some network card on 2 appliances that i just
bought.
Indeed, two network card (82575EB chipset) are not recognized correctly.
I get the following error message :
/em0 at pci2 dev 0 function 0 "Intel PRO/1000 PT (82575EB)" rev 0x02: cannot
find i/o space
em1 at pci
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 01:22:19PM +0200, Tony Berth wrote:
> I can't??? So the limit of 4G physical memory still exists? And why was this
> statement made from 4.4 release?
physical vs virtual memory, as has been explained already
it's no longer 1950; we've got this thing called "swap"
>
> Tha
Marzo 2011
Curso de Nominas 2011
VisiC3n Humana (ConsultorC-a en Recursos Humanos) tiene el agrado de invitarlo
al "Curso de NC3minas 2011" que se llevarC! a cabo en el mes de Abril
de 2011.
OBJETIVO: Conocer las disposiciones legales y procedimientos para realizar al
correcto cC!lculo de una
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 01:22:19PM +0200, Tony Berth wrote:
> I can't??? So the limit of 4G physical memory still exists? And why was this
> statement made from 4.4 release?
Yes, the limit still exists. Work on that is progressing, but slowly.
I don't think 4.4 was shipped with bigmem enabled. CV
Could you donate a dual port card to the project if you replace them?
I would like to figure out why some em(4) perform badly while the same
chip on a different card seems to perform as expected.
Can you provide the vmstat -zi output of the 4 port card? I wonder how
the interrupts are shared on th
I can't??? So the limit of 4G physical memory still exists? And why was this
statement made from 4.4 release?
Thanks
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Janne Johansson wrote:
>
>
> 2011/3/30 Tony Berth
>
>> currently not but this machine will be a DB server (Postgresql + Mysql)
>> and
>> it was
Ok, now we have been doing some testing and probably found the problem.
All tests were done on the same machine with an Intel S5000VSA MB and a
Xeon E5420 2,5 Ghz processor, running OpenBSD 4.8 amd64 GENERIC (SP
kernel).
We tested the performance with iperf, running two clients connected
through
[IMAGE]
Wsi y Pms Capacitacisn Efectiva de Mixico presentan:
Congreso Nacional Internet Marketing Evolution este 11 de abril Ciudad de
Mixico.
Digital Marketing, Social Media, Search Engine Optimization, Realidad
Aumentada y mas
Empresa Registrada ante la STPS Reg. COLG640205CP30005
Smguenos e
2011/3/30 Tony Berth
> currently not but this machine will be a DB server (Postgresql + Mysql) and
> it was aksed if we could go beyond the 8G.
>
> In any case, for now, if I can address 8G physical memory is fine.
>
>
..which you cant.
--
To our sweethearts and wives. May they never meet. -
Anybody there was able to compile darkice on OpenBSD 4.8 or -current ?
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Evgeniy Sudyr wrote:
> I got source from anoncvs and then added include to .cpp files
>
> #include "/usr/src/usr.sbin/nsd/compat/pselect.c"
>
> now I'm getting next error:
>
>
> /usr/include/g+
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Alexander Schrijver
wrote:
> It's a great way to keep someone out of their own system.
>
Unless you enable root login...
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:22:44 +0200, Alexander Schrijver
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:06:14AM +0300, Gregory Edigarov wrote:
>> IMHO it is absolutelly useless, objections are:
>> 1. You can limit connections using firewall.
>> 2. You already have the feature by name "limiting the number of
>
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Alexander Schrijver
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 03:00:18PM +0700, Edho P Arief wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Alexander Schrijver
>> wrote:
>> > It's a great way to keep someone out of their own system.
>> >
>>
>> Unless you enable root login...
>
On 30 March 2011 20:22, Alexander Schrijver
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:06:14AM +0300, Gregory Edigarov wrote:
>> IMHO it is absolutelly useless, objections are:
>> 1. You can limit connections using firewall.
>> 2. You already have the feature by name "limiting the number of
>> retries"
>
currently not but this machine will be a DB server (Postgresql + Mysql) and
it was aksed if we could go beyond the 8G.
In any case, for now, if I can address 8G physical memory is fine.
Thanks for your feedback
Tony
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Ted Unangst wrote:
> No, are you having a pr
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 03:00:18PM +0700, Edho P Arief wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Alexander Schrijver
> wrote:
> > It's a great way to keep someone out of their own system.
> >
>
> Unless you enable root login...
How does that help?
We don't support pciide at cardbus yet.
The cardbus code ideally needs to be folded into the pci
code, this would solve these kinds of problems but is quite painful
to do.
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 02:30:10AM +0100, iproudlyeat...@gmail.com wrote:
> I have a Delock 2xeSATA PCMCIA card that isn't
> c
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:06:14AM +0300, Gregory Edigarov wrote:
> IMHO it is absolutelly useless, objections are:
> 1. You can limit connections using firewall.
> 2. You already have the feature by name "limiting the number of
> retries"
> 3. If you really want PROTECTION - you should turn off pa
Don't reinvent wheel
http://home.nuug.no/~peter/pf/en/bruteforce.html
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 7:58 AM, nagygabor88 wrote:
> I'm writing here, because the ssh dev list says:
>
> Mail Delivery Status Notification (Delay)
> [Status: Error, Address: , ResponseCode 451,
> Temporary failure, please
IMHO it is absolutelly useless, objections are:
1. You can limit connections using firewall.
2. You already have the feature by name "limiting the number of
retries"
3. If you really want PROTECTION - you should turn off password
authentication completelly and use RSA key with passphrase.
On Wed,
Isn't limiting the number of retries obtaining the same result? I mean,
limiting the number of retries to 5 and having to wait for 10 seconds after
five failed attempts will have the same outcome without the hassle, IMO.
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 22:58:53 -0700
nagygabor88 wrote:
> What is you're opi
45 matches
Mail list logo
