hi all
my trouble description:
--part of dmesg---
CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.40GHz (2392.26-MHz 686-class CPU)
Origin = GenuineIntel Id = 0xf27 Stepping = 7
Eygene Ryabinkin wrote:
And is your /usr/X11R6 symlinked to /usr/local?
have this symlink
Then remove /usr/X11R6/etc from the local_startup variable
(in /etc/rc.conf and/or in /etc/defaults/rc.conf) and enjoy single
startup of scripts ;))
Seems like you had updated
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
sam wrote:
hi all
my trouble description:
Do NOT use ULE on 6.x. ULE has been revamped heavily on 7.0 and the
version on 6.x is old, and is known to contain some bugs.
Cheers,
- --
Xin LI [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.delphij.net/
FreeBSD -
Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 11:56:21AM +0300, sam wrote:
Then remove /usr/X11R6/etc from the local_startup variable
(in /etc/rc.conf and/or in /etc/defaults/rc.conf) and enjoy single
startup of scripts ;))
thx
iam deleted this symlink
No, no, no: you should not remove the symlink itself. By the
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Greetings,
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Fixing all of the above I can send at about 13MB/sec (timecounter is
not relevant any more). The CPU is spending about 75% of the time
in the kernel, so
that is the next place to look. [hit send too
Julian Elischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dag-Erling Smørgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Julian Elischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
you mean FILO or LIFO right?
Uh, no. You want to reuse the last-freed object, as it is most
likely to still be in cache.
exactly.. FILO or LIFO (last in
Greetings,
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Fixing all of the above I can send at about 13MB/sec (timecounter is
not relevant any more). The CPU is spending about 75% of the time
in the kernel, so
that is the next place to look. [hit send too soon]
Actually 15MB/sec
On 04/02/2008, Stefan Lambrev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kris if you do not mind I'll write to hping developers to adopt this
patch, and if no response from them I can try to reach the port
maintainer, so we have this patched in ports?
As we're in a the whole world is a Linux situation, would
Jeremy Chadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As you said: the code shows that when no files are specified (e.g. read
off a pipe), sort will make some assumptions regarding the initial
buffer size to read data into. The buffer size allocated in that case
is fairly large, rather than basing it
On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 04:31:34PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Dag-Erling Smørgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Erik Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yep, it seems that GNU sort allocates a quite large buffer by default when
the size of the input is unknown (such as when it reads
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 04:04:35PM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote:
Last I checked, it also (rather surprisingly) lacked -u (unique),
which is required by POSIX.
That must have been before the import into src/usr.bin/sort in 2000.
Joerg
___
Me again.
Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 05:41:18PM +0300, Eygene Ryabinkin wrote:
This is a sort of 'ping' mail, sorry. To the point: I had reproduced
the problem and will start looking into it once this message will
fly from my mailserver. Stay tuned ;))
OK, things should be better with the
Joerg Sonnenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 04:04:35PM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote:
Last I checked, it also (rather surprisingly) lacked -u (unique),
which is required by POSIX.
That must have been before the import into src/usr.bin/sort in 2000.
Oops - I
More on the problem with reading big directories on UDF.
First, some sleuthing. I came to believe that the problem is caused by
some larger change in vfs/vm/buf area. It seems that now VMIO is applied
to more vnode types than before. In particular it seems that now vnodes
for devices have
Greetings,
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Greetings,
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Fixing all of the above I can send at about 13MB/sec (timecounter
is not relevant any more). The CPU is spending about 75% of the
time in the kernel, so
that is the next place to look. [hit
Andriy Gapon wrote:
More on the problem with reading big directories on UDF.
First, some sleuthing. I came to believe that the problem is caused by
some larger change in vfs/vm/buf area. It seems that now VMIO is applied
to more vnode types than before. In particular it seems that now vnodes
More on the problem with reading big directories on UDF.
First, some sleuthing. I came to believe that the problem is caused by
some larger change in vfs/vm/buf area. It seems that now VMIO is applied
to more vnode types than before. In particular it seems that now vnodes
for devices have
On 04/02/2008, Alexander Leidinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ivan just change the page today. Feel free to suggest more specific things.
Yes, I've added notes on syscall caching on Linux and socket buffer
semantics. I've also linked to the page from Wikipedia article on
FreeBSD - maybe it will
Andriy Gapon wrote:
More on the problem with reading big directories on UDF.
You do realise that you have now made yourself the official
maintainer of the UDF file system by submitting a competent
and insightful analysis of the problem?
First, some sleuthing. I came to believe that the
Cristian, good day.
Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 01:26:41PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just ran into the same problem. In xorg.conf I explicitly told the
synaptics driver to use psm and /dev/psm0, but the error message
would
suggest that it uses event.
Also, I tried to change the
On Saturday 02 February 2008 06:40:15 pm Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
I just had a power outage and when it came back /dev/dsp0.0 was
missing from the devices. the kern module loaded fine and detected
the card correctly (according to dmesg, sysctl and /dev/sndstat) but
neither the above or
Greetings,
Ivan Voras wrote:
On 04/02/2008, Stefan Lambrev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kris if you do not mind I'll write to hping developers to adopt this
patch, and if no response from them I can try to reach the port
maintainer, so we have this patched in ports?
As we're in a the
On Feb 4, 2008, at 08:03 , John Baldwin wrote:
On Saturday 02 February 2008 06:40:15 pm Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
I just had a power outage and when it came back /dev/dsp0.0 was
missing from the devices. the kern module loaded fine and detected
the card correctly (according to dmesg, sysctl
David Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We had been using a BSD-licensed sort(1), but ache@ changed it back to
GNU sort several years ago. Anyone know why? If I had to guess I'd say
i18n [...]
That is my recollection as well. We would do well to take a look at the
code (and CVS logs) from
On Sun, Feb 03, 2008, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Dag-Erling Smørgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Erik Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yep, it seems that GNU sort allocates a quite large buffer by default when
the size of the input is unknown (such as when it reads input from stdin.)
A
Julian Elischer píše v po 04. 02. 2008 v 10:36 -0800:
Andriy Gapon wrote:
More on the problem with reading big directories on UDF.
You do realise that you have now made yourself the official
maintainer of the UDF file system by submitting a competent
and insightful analysis of the problem?
Xin LI wrote:
I can not speak for that, but my understanding is, no, it won't be
MFC'ed. The performance enhancements on 7.x included a lot of factors,
ULE is one of them, and there are also some other enhancements in the
system, which could be not suitable for MFC due to ABI/KBI change.
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
FreeBSD - ACPI
em1 in 13.157 MB/s 13.162 MB/s 23.697 GB
out13.150 MB/s 13.153 MB/s 17.976 GB
FreeBSD - TSC
em1 in 18.624 MB/s 18.832 MB/s 25.507 GB
Quoting Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, there is no possibility of ULE 2.0 being merged to 6.x. Use it in
6.x if you dare, just don't complain to us if it breaks your system :-)
All right, I won't :-)
i.e. if at any point you start experiencing problems, do not report them
until you
Quoting Xin LI [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Do NOT use ULE on 6.x. ULE has been revamped heavily on 7.0 and the
version on 6.x is old, and is known to contain some bugs.
Is it particular to 6.x *SMP* systems ?
I've been using 6.3-R with ULE for about a fortnight without any trouble (on a
pentium4-m
On Mon, 04.02.2008 at 13:00:40 -0700, Bert JW Regeer wrote:
On Feb 4, 2008, at 08:03 , John Baldwin wrote:
On Saturday 02 February 2008 06:40:15 pm Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
I just had a power outage and when it came back /dev/dsp0.0 was
missing from the devices. the kern module loaded
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Xin LI [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Do NOT use ULE on 6.x. ULE has been revamped heavily on 7.0 and the
version on 6.x is old, and is known to contain some bugs.
Is it particular to 6.x *SMP* systems ?
Particular to
On Feb 4, 2008, at 14:52 , Ulrich Spoerlein wrote:
On Mon, 04.02.2008 at 13:00:40 -0700, Bert JW Regeer wrote:
On Feb 4, 2008, at 08:03 , John Baldwin wrote:
On Saturday 02 February 2008 06:40:15 pm Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
I just had a power outage and when it came back /dev/dsp0.0 was
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, there is no possibility of ULE 2.0 being merged to 6.x. Use it in
6.x if you dare, just don't complain to us if it breaks your system :-)
All right, I won't :-)
i.e. if at any point you start experiencing problems, do
34 matches
Mail list logo
