On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
nobody should be running an open FTP server that allows
uploading to anyone unless they are willing to take the time to
monitor it
Some ftp daemons have the option to automatically email
the admins every time a file gets uploaded.
100MB is
On Mon, 7 May 2001, Matt Dillon wrote:
their hands of the whole affair. A production machine with 128M of ram
and 1G of swap is going to go down the tubes performance-wise long
before it runs out of swap. Performance degredation under heavy
memory loads is a much more
On Mon, 7 May 2001, Matt Dillon wrote:
:Indeed, this is an interesting area. In the process of
:researching how to best implement this for Linux I have
:found various reasons why both FreeBSD's and NetBSD's
:load control systems cannot work in various realistic
:scenarios.
A
load
On Mon, 7 May 2001, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
* Rik van Riel [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010507 10:59] wrote:
The next step is designing a load control system that
does work (not too hard) and having a reliable way of
detecting when exactly the system is thrashing (next
to impossible?).
You
On Mon, 7 May 2001, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
In FreeBSD we submit a patch perhaps after having an N-way
conversation (*) about the problem being addressed.
I'm are awaiting your patch,
I'll let this contradiction speak for itself.
You'll see a detailed analysis soon, patches will come only
On Sun, 6 May 2001, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 02:37:07PM -0700, Dennis Glatting wrote:
I wrote a trivial program to fill vm and found I can reliably freeze my
system. It may not work on the first attempt, but certainly within three.
My command line is:
On Sun, 6 May 2001, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2001 04:47:24 MST, Kris Kennaway wrote:
What resource limits have you set?
While that's a reasonable question when you're in a support role, I'd
certainly like to hear whether FreeBSD freezes on memory exhaustion is
something
On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Cejka Rudolf wrote:
Right now, I have upgraded my -current machine from
February 13 to April 26.
I were pleased with change to dir allocation in FFS,
but here are my unpleasant test results (UDMA33, partition
is 3 GB
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
requires vm_page_queues_mtx:
manipulation of vm_page_queues
[snip]
pmaps spotted:
pmap_copy_page
pmap_page_protect
There is potential for nasty lock ordering conflicts here.
Page faults will govm_mtx - vm_page_queues_mtx
The pageout code
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Matt Dillon wrote:
:You need to settle dude, pre-emption isn't a goal, it's mearly a
:_possible_ side effect.
:
:We're not aiming for pre-emption, we're aiming for more concurrancy.
A goal of having more concurrency is laudable, but I think you are
ignoring
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Matt Dillon wrote:
Under a full load polling would work just as well as an interrupt.
With NT for the network tests they hardwired each NIC to a particular
CPU. I don't know if they did any polling or not.
Not true. Interrupts work worse than polling because
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, E.B. Dreger wrote:
For minimal CPU utilization, it would be nice skip task switching,
period. Run something to completion, then go on to the next task.
Poll without ever using an interrupt.
[snip]
Hence, my philosophy is that task switching and preemption are
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
Brad Huntting wrote:
Could we perhaps "close" the freebsd-current list?
No.
I've just setup a system which stores spam regexps in
a CVS tree and automatically regenerates my majordomo.cf
whenever new spam regular expressions are added.
Currently
13 matches
Mail list logo
