on 12/12/2011 07:58 FreeBSD Tinderbox said the following:
In file included from /src/sys/kern/kern_racct.c:53:
/src/sys/sys/sx.h: In function '__sx_xlock':
/src/sys/sys/sx.h:154: warning: implicit declaration of function
'SCHEDULER_STOPPED'
/src/sys/sys/sx.h:154: warning: nested extern
TB --- 2011-12-12 09:10:00 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-12-12 09:10:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for i386/i386
TB --- 2011-12-12 09:10:00 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-12-12 09:10:23 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-12-12 09:10:23 -
TB --- 2011-12-12 09:10:00 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-12-12 09:10:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for amd64/amd64
TB --- 2011-12-12 09:10:00 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-12-12 09:10:30 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-12-12 09:10:30 -
Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on idprio 31 so this isn't an
issue. And yes, there are cases where SCHED_ULE shows much better
performance then SCHED_4BSD. [...]
Do we have any proof at hand for such cases where SCHED_ULE performs
much better than SCHED_4BSD? Whenever the subject
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/12/2011 13:47, O. Hartmann wrote:
Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on idprio 31 so this isn't an
issue. And yes, there are cases where SCHED_ULE shows much better
performance then SCHED_4BSD. [...]
Do we have any proof at hand for
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:13:00 +
Vincent Hoffman vi...@unsane.co.uk wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/12/2011 13:47, O. Hartmann wrote:
Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on idprio 31 so this isn't an
issue. And yes, there are cases where SCHED_ULE
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 02:47:57PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on idprio 31 so this isn't an
issue. And yes, there are cases where SCHED_ULE shows much better
performance then SCHED_4BSD. [...]
Do we have any proof at hand for such cases where
On Monday, October 24, 2011 8:14:22 am John Baldwin wrote:
On Sunday, October 23, 2011 11:58:28 am Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:44:45AM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 08:10:38AM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
My suggestion would be that
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Gary Jennejohn
gljennj...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:13:00 +
Vincent Hoffman vi...@unsane.co.uk wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/12/2011 13:47, O. Hartmann wrote:
Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on
Did you use -jX to build the world?
_
Von: Gary Jennejohn gljennj...@googlemail.com
Versendet am: Mon Dec 12 16:32:21 MEZ 2011
An: Vincent Hoffman vi...@unsane.co.uk
CC: O. Hartmann ohart...@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de, Current FreeBSD
Would it be possible to implement a mechanism that lets one change the
scheduler on the fly? Afaik Solaris can do that.
_
Von: Steve Kargl s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu
Versendet am: Mon Dec 12 16:51:59 MEZ 2011
An: O. Hartmann
On 12/12/2011 15:51, Steve Kargl wrote:
This comes up every 9 months or so, and must be approaching FAQ
status. In a HPC environment, I recommend 4BSD. Depending on the
workload, ULE can cause a severe increase in turn around time when
doing already long computations. If you have an MPI
В Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:18:35 +
Bruce Cran br...@cran.org.uk пишет:
On 12/12/2011 15:51, Steve Kargl wrote:
This comes up every 9 months or so, and must be approaching FAQ
status. In a HPC environment, I recommend 4BSD. Depending on the
workload, ULE can cause a severe increase in turn
On Monday 12 December 2011 14:47:57 O. Hartmann wrote:
Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on idprio 31 so this isn't an
issue. And yes, there are cases where SCHED_ULE shows much better
performance then SCHED_4BSD. [...]
Do we have any proof at hand for such cases where SCHED_ULE
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:10:46 +0100
Lars Engels lars.eng...@0x20.net wrote:
Did you use -jX to build the world?
I'm top posting since Lars did.
It was buildkernel, not buildworld.
Yes, -j6.
_
Von: Gary Jennejohn gljennj...@googlemail.com
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:04:37 -0800
m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Gary Jennejohn
gljennj...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:13:00 +
Vincent Hoffman vi...@unsane.co.uk wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/12/2011
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:18:35PM +, Bruce Cran wrote:
On 12/12/2011 15:51, Steve Kargl wrote:
This comes up every 9 months or so, and must be approaching FAQ
status. In a HPC environment, I recommend 4BSD. Depending on the
workload, ULE can cause a severe increase in turn around time
On Friday, December 09, 2011 5:10:18 am Lev Serebryakov wrote:
Hello, Freebsd-current.
Soekris (famous developer of small x86-compatible appliance-like
hardware) released net6501 some time ago, which is based on Atom (E6xx)
CPU.
It seems, that 64-bit version of Linux could run on it
On Thursday, December 01, 2011 4:23:11 pm David Schultz wrote:
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011, George Liaskos wrote:
Hello
One example is Google's tcmalloc [1], is this behaviour intended?
[1] http://code.google.com/p/google-
perftools/source/browse/trunk/src/maybe_threads.cc
This code uses
On Monday, December 12, 2011 12:06:04 pm Steve Kargl wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:18:35PM +, Bruce Cran wrote:
On 12/12/2011 15:51, Steve Kargl wrote:
This comes up every 9 months or so, and must be approaching FAQ
status. In a HPC environment, I recommend 4BSD. Depending on the
Hello!
My question is quite short and stupid -- why there is still no
packages for 10-current? Did I miss something?
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 09:06:04AM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
Tuning kern.sched.preempt_thresh did not seem to help for
my workload. My code is a classic master-slave OpenMPI
application where the master runs on one node and all
cpu-bound slaves are sent to a second node. If I send
send
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 01:03:30PM -0600, Scott Lambert wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 09:06:04AM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
Tuning kern.sched.preempt_thresh did not seem to help for
my workload. My code is a classic master-slave OpenMPI
application where the master runs on one node and all
On 12/7/2011 02:17, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
On 7. Dec 2011, at 09:29 , Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 03:32:41PM -0700, Xin LI wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
I'd like to request for comments on the attached driver, which supports
watchdogs on
Hi!
My question is quite short and stupid -- why there is still no
packages for 10-current? Did I miss something?
Because the ports people are busy with getting 9.0-REL out of the door.
--
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 9 years to go !
On 12/12/2011 2:49 PM, Keith Simonsen wrote:
I've been using 20110718-02-wbwd.diff for a few months now on a project
with PC Engines Alix 1.d boards (http://pcengines.ch/alix1d.htm). They
have a Winbond W83627HG chip. I don't see any probing/attach messages
on boot but the driver seems to
On 12/12/11 18:06, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:18:35PM +, Bruce Cran wrote:
On 12/12/2011 15:51, Steve Kargl wrote:
This comes up every 9 months or so, and must be approaching FAQ
status. In a HPC environment, I recommend 4BSD. Depending on the
workload, ULE can cause
On 12/12/11 19:46, siur wrote:
Hello!
My question is quite short and stupid -- why there is still no
packages for 10-current? Did I miss something?
10.0-CURRENT is at this very moment the bloody edge development and
9.0-REL isn't out yet. So do not expect personell dedicating themselfs
on
On 12/12/2011 12:25, Mike Tancsa wrote:
On 12/12/2011 2:49 PM, Keith Simonsen wrote:
I've been using 20110718-02-wbwd.diff for a few months now on a project
with PC Engines Alix 1.d boards (http://pcengines.ch/alix1d.htm). They
have a Winbond W83627HG chip. I don't see any probing/attach
On 12/12/2011 23:48, O. Hartmann wrote:
Is the tuning of kern.sched.preempt_thresh and a proper method of
estimating its correct value for the intended to use workload
documented in the manpages, maybe tuning()? I find it hard to crawl a
lot of pros and cons of mailing lists for evaluating a
On 12/12/2011 05:47, O. Hartmann wrote:
Do we have any proof at hand for such cases where SCHED_ULE performs
much better than SCHED_4BSD?
I complained about poor interactive performance of ULE in a desktop
environment for years. I had numerous people try to help, including
Jeff, with various
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:46:08PM +0400, siur wrote:
why there is still no packages for 10-current? Did I miss something?
We're trying to debug multiple package building problems, and currently
using i386-10 for that. Until we get farther along with that process,
we aren't doing amd64-10 yet.
Hi Folks,
I have a 9-prerelease system where I've been testing nfs/zfs. The
system has been working quite well until moving the server to a multihomed
configuration.
Given the following:
nfsd: master (nfsd)
nfsd: server (nfsd)
/usr/sbin/rpcbind -h 10.24.6.38 -h 172.1.1.2 -h
On 2011-11-23 19:26, Sean Bruno wrote:
On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 09:58 -0800, Rick Macklem wrote:
I don't know if Dimitry tried this, but you could also try the
nolockd option, so that byte range locking is done locally in
the client and avoids the NLM.
Good luck with it and please let us know
34 matches
Mail list logo
