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 l
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 172.21.201
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.
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 t
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 co
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 me
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 12/12/11 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
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
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 12/7/2011 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 s
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 a
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
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 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 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
>
> Thi
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
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
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:04:37 -0800
m...@freebsd.org wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Gary Jennejohn
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:13:00 +
> > Vincent Hoffman wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> On 12/12/2011 13:47, O. Hartmann wrot
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:10:46 +0100
Lars Engels 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
> Versendet am: Mon Dec 12 16:32:21 MEZ 2011
> An
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_U
В Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:18:35 +
Bruce Cran 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 around tim
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 applica
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
Versendet am: Mon Dec 12 16:51:59 MEZ 2011
An: "O. Hartmann"
CC: freebsd-performa...@freebsd.org, Current FreeBS
Did you use -jX to build the world?
_
Von: Gary Jennejohn
Versendet am: Mon Dec 12 16:32:21 MEZ 2011
An: Vincent Hoffman
CC: "O. Hartmann" , Current FreeBSD
, freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org,
freebsd-performa...@freebsd.org
Betreff: Re: SCHED_ULE should n
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Gary Jennejohn
wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:13:00 +
> Vincent Hoffman 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
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
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 whe
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:13:00 +
Vincent Hoffman 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 shows much
-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 ha
> 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 c
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 - /usr/bin
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 - /usr/bin/c
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 d
34 matches
Mail list logo
