Hi all,
First, I'll say my intent is not to spam a bunch of lists, but after
posting to opensolaris-discuss I had someone communicate with me offline
that these lists would possibly be a better place to start. So here we
are. For those on all three lists, sorry for the repetition.
Second, thi
Hi Drew,
These changes look fine to me. I'm impressed that you went to the
trouble to write your own AVL tree implementation; however, I suppose it
was required for portability. Solaris has one on the default install,
in /usr/include/sys/avl.h and /usr/lib/libavl.so.1.
-j
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008
Demetri,
I think you may be the only person (besides myself) that has tried to
use "foreach". The problem isn't the "foreach" command though, it is
that "run 10" shuts down processes when it finishes and re-running from
the same "f" script doesn't work. I have two suggestions:
1) create a .p
Ben Rockwood wrote:
>
> I was doing some NFS benchmarking over the weekend with undesirable
> results. I thought that I'd use a share from tmpfs in order to contrast
> my results. I expected line speed NFS performance... but the results
> were horrible, far slower than any disk-based NFS benchma
Ben Rockwood wrote:
> I was doing some NFS benchmarking over the weekend with undesirable
> results. I thought that I'd use a share from tmpfs in order to contrast
> my results. I expected line speed NFS performance... but the results
> were horrible, far slower than any disk-based NFS benchmark.
Hello all,
I added a clause to my script.
sysinfo:::
/self->traceme==1 && pid == $1/
{
trace(execname);
printf("sysinfo: timestamp : %d" , timestamp);
}
A subsequent trace created a file of about 19000 lines.
I loaded in Excel to be able to subtrace timestamps etc.
The longest jump
