Re: HAMMER FS port (status ?)

i remember a discussion about HAMMER support on one of the mailingslists which sorta ended with the following statement: let's get zfs running properly before we even think about starting with HAMMER. cheers. alex ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org

Re: HAMMER FS port (status ?)

Alexander Best alexbes...@math.uni-muenster.de writes: i remember a discussion about HAMMER support on one of the mailingslists which sorta ended with the following statement: let's get zfs running properly before we even think about starting with HAMMER. Not a valid argument; regardless of

Re: genuine cpu I386_CPU kernel support

I honestly can't see why you would want to waste your time like this, but it's yours to waste I suppose. (Even a notorious packrat like me has gotten rid of hardware from that era.) mcl Hmm, So that's you jhb warning me off. Well I do have a ToDo list that's a mile long, so maybe I'd best

Re: HAMMER FS port (status ?)

Dag-Erling Smørgrav schrieb am 2009-09-24: Alexander Best alexbes...@math.uni-muenster.de writes: i remember a discussion about HAMMER support on one of the mailingslists which sorta ended with the following statement: let's get zfs running properly before we even think about starting

HEADSUP: Call for FreeBSD Status Reports

Dear all, I would like to remind you to submit your status reports as soon as possible. Long time has passed since the last status reports were released; and surely a lot has had happened since then. Our developers are relaxed after DevSummit and EuroBSDCon in Cambridge, which both were

Re: HAMMER FS port (status ?)

On Thursday 24 September 2009 6:28:31 am Alexander Best wrote: i remember a discussion about HAMMER support on one of the mailingslists which sorta ended with the following statement: let's get zfs running properly before we even think about starting with HAMMER. cheers. alex

Re: HAMMER FS port (status ?)

2009/9/24 Gonzalo Nemmi gne...@gmail.com On Thursday 24 September 2009 6:28:31 am Alexander Best wrote: i remember a discussion about HAMMER support on one of the mailingslists which sorta ended with the following statement: let's get zfs running properly before we even think about

Re: HAMMER FS port (status ?)

I think that one questions pops into the minds of a lot of people right now: Why not just use DragonFly BSD? It is a pretty decent system. Why do you need it to be FreeBSD w/ Hammer and not DragonFly BSD? Maybe there are some reasons, but I don't see it. Could anybody point it out for me?

Re: HAMMER FS port (status ?)

Hi 2009/9/24 Leandro Quibem Magnabosco leandro.magnabo...@fcdl-sc.org.br: I think that one questions pops into the minds of a lot of people right now: Why not just use DragonFly BSD? It is a pretty decent system. Why do you need it to be FreeBSD w/ Hammer and not DragonFly BSD? exist

Re: HAMMER FS port (status ?)

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 01:35:21PM -0300, Leandro Quibem Magnabosco wrote: I think that one questions pops into the minds of a lot of people right now: Why not just use DragonFly BSD? Feel free, but take it off-list, please. mcl ___

Re: HAMMER FS port (status ?)

Mark Linimon escreveu: On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 01:35:21PM -0300, Leandro Quibem Magnabosco wrote: I think that one questions pops into the minds of a lot of people right now: Why not just use DragonFly BSD? Feel free, but take it off-list, please. mcl We (me and Luiz) did that

Is the FreeBSD ABI compatibility policy documented anywhere

It seems that FreeBSD has an ABI compatibility policy where major versions remain ABI and API compatible throughout minor point versions. That is to say that the kernel interfaces and libraries for (eg) 7-STABLE, 7.1-RELEASE, 7.2-RELEASE are not supposed to change. Is this a policy of the

Re: Is the FreeBSD ABI compatibility policy documented anywhere

Stef Walter wrote: It seems that FreeBSD has an ABI compatibility policy where major versions remain ABI and API compatible throughout minor point versions. That is to say that the kernel interfaces and libraries for (eg) 7-STABLE, 7.1-RELEASE, 7.2-RELEASE are not supposed to change. Is this a

Re: genuine cpu I386_CPU kernel support

Julian Elischer wrote: I think a 386 can assume non-SMP in which case that can be simulated just fine :-) it also simplifies a lot of the other breakages.. #if (CPU == 80386) defined(SMP) #error can't have smp on a 386 #endif Paging Terry Lambert...Terry Lambert, to the hackers lounge

sx locks and memory barriers

Hi all, looking at sys/sx.h I have some troubles understanding this comment: * A note about memory barriers. Exclusive locks need to use the same * memory barriers as mutexes: _acq when acquiring an exclusive lock * and _rel when releasing an exclusive lock. On the other side, * shared

Re: Is the FreeBSD ABI compatibility policy documented anywhere

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:00:04 -0700 Julian Elischer jul...@elischer.org wrote: Stef Walter wrote: It seems that FreeBSD has an ABI compatibility policy where major versions remain ABI and API compatible throughout minor point versions. That is to say that the kernel interfaces and libraries

altq over vlan: patch exists ?

Hi guys, The configuration Altq on one interface VLAN is working on OpenBSD and DragonFlyBSD, but FreeBSD no ! exists any patch for this ? or .. why no working ? any reason ? thanx -- Luiz Gustavo Costa (Powered by BSD) *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+ mundoUnix -