Iruata Souza wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 2:12 AM, Benjamin Huntsman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Furthermore, does anyone out there run Plan 9 on non-x86 hardware anymore?
only for the fun of it, I'm slowly trying to port it to my SGI O2.
nice! whats the status of your port? have
I could imagine that databases use mmap() havily
it's a little mystery for me why they would do that since it's slower (or ought
to be),
because the trap path and fault recovery must do more work than syscall
(perhaps much more).
it's also difficult then to optimise the replacement strategy
Charles Forsyth wrote:
I could imagine that databases use mmap() havily
it's a little mystery for me why they would do that since it's slower (or ought
to be),
because the trap path and fault recovery must do more work than syscall
(perhaps much more).
it's also difficult then to
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 10:07 +0100, Charles Forsyth wrote:
I could imagine that databases use mmap() havily
it's a little mystery for me why they would do that since it's slower (or
ought to be),
slower compared to what? I'd expect the biggest slowdown for
read()/write() be not the price
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 22:09 -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 18:28 -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
coming as no suprise, the pc port of plan 9
does work just fine with 8 cores.
mpls; cat /dev/sysstat
0 14271 21350133991116
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 5:41 AM, erik quanstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
as you've pointed out, performance-wise it's not copying vs. nothing
it's copying vs page faults and trips through the vm code.
i would think playing vm games (as linus likes to say) would make
scheduling on mp harder
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:07, Charles Forsyth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I could imagine that databases use mmap() havily
it's a little mystery for me why they would do that since it's slower (or
ought to be),
because the trap path and fault recovery must do more work than syscall
(perhaps
Well, depends. Non-mmap you have to do the storage management in the
app. mmap, you're using the storage management in the kernel to figure
out where the data goes, as well as all the LRU stuff to figure out
what happens when you're running out of memory and you need to get rid
of some of
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:45 AM, erik quanstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i haven't found this to be the case.
it's not always the case.
in a former life, one i'd rather forget, i did
full text search.
in order to return the full text, we had to go
get the document. due to the very
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 5:38 AM, Kernel Panic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Iruata Souza wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 2:12 AM, Benjamin Huntsman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Furthermore, does anyone out there run Plan 9 on non-x86 hardware
anymore?
only for the fun of it, I'm slowly trying to
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Benjamin Huntsman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That being said, while huge scalability is certainly research-worthy, does
anyone actually run anything on Plan 9 that needs or would otherwise benefit
from 8+ CPUs and more than a few GB's of RAM?
The Blue gene HPC
Furthermore, does anyone out there run Plan 9 on non-x86 hardware anymore?
yes: http://tinyurl.com/5jc8u8, for instance
Hi Mr Forsyth,
I tried to respond to your directly, but the mail bounced.
Here in Saudi Arabia tinyurl is blocked (by the govt). Is it possible
that you (or someone else) can expand the URL for me and send it to me
off-list?
Thanks
John Waters,
No relation to the director
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008
Some people would like to, but to my knowledge fourth edition hasn't
been ported to any other platforms.
Plan 9 has always run on multiple architectures,
and the fourth edition is no different. ls /sys/src/9
will show you that there are ports to the Alpha PC (alphapc)
the HP iPaq (bitsy), and
For me the URL works out to:
http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/research_projects.nsf/pages/hare.index.html
HARE! Awesome.
Anthony
I'd like to ask a question, but before I do, feel I should say, I've
been on this list long enough to understand that Plan 9 is a research
vessel, not an OS that's targeted at commercial deployment...
i can't agree with this label research os if you mean
to imply that it's not stable or
if that doesn't compel you, running upas imap server for ~40 users
with 1.3gb of inboxes might. since upas has the bad manners to load
the entire mailbox, we're using about 90% of the 3.5gb bios will spare
us in 32bit mode. i also watched it at 100% cpu for a solid hour
yesterday.
There is
You could always import /net from a 9grid node in a (more) free
country ;) (Maybe SA should start filtering 9P connections ;)
Peace
uriel
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 2:13 PM, John Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Mr Forsyth,
I tried to respond to your directly, but the mail bounced.
Here in
I have a means to circumvent the filters, but not at my current location.
Thankfully 9p flows as poorly as all the other protocols here in KSA,
but it still flows. I wonder sometimes if I am the only plan 9 user in
The Kingdom... Where most folks are accustomed to five nines of
availability, the
Uriel wrote:
You could always import /net from a 9grid node in a (more) free
country ;) (Maybe SA should start filtering 9P connections ;)
Peace
Glad to hear that device remoting has some practical applications :-)
Given the US Department of Homeland Insecurity, we may need that in the
US
i can't agree with this label research os if you mean
to imply that it's not stable or somehow unfinished.
Not at all. Just meant that one doesn't run their company's Oracle database on
it.
Not because it's not worthy of doing so, but such things just aren't compiled
for it.
...you mean
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Benjamin Huntsman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i can't agree with this label research os if you mean
to imply that it's not stable or somehow unfinished.
Not at all. Just meant that one doesn't run their company's Oracle database
on it.
Not because it's not
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 18:28 -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
coming as no suprise, the pc port of plan 9
does work just fine with 8 cores.
mpls; cat /dev/sysstat
0 14271 21350133991116 0
0 0 99 0
Looking at
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 2:12 AM, Benjamin Huntsman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Furthermore, does anyone out there run Plan 9 on non-x86 hardware anymore?
only for the fun of it, I'm slowly trying to port it to my SGI O2.
iru
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 18:28 -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
coming as no suprise, the pc port of plan 9
does work just fine with 8 cores.
mpls; cat /dev/sysstat
0 14271 21350133991116 0
0 0 99 0
Looking
coming as no suprise, the pc port of plan 9
does work just fine with 8 cores.
mpls; cat /dev/sysstat
0 14271 21350133991116 0
0 0 99 0
19116 1051772279 812 0
coming as no suprise, the pc port of plan 9
does work just fine with 8 cores.
Just out of interest, what's the machine?
winmail.dat
Which hardware platform is that?
-mlw
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of erik quanstrom
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 3:29 PM
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Subject: [9fans] 8 cores
coming as no suprise, the pc port of plan 9 does work just fine with 8
add this one to the list:
http://9fans.net/archive/2003/12/182
I'd like to ask a question, but before I do, feel I should say, I've been on
this list long enough to understand that Plan 9 is a research vessel, not an OS
that's targeted at commercial deployment...
That being said, while huge scalability is certainly research-worthy, does
anyone actually
30 matches
Mail list logo
