So runtime performance is on par with gcc, code size is a bit bigger
bigger code=lower performance except benchmarks :)
smaller code fits better in cache.
so there is still room for optimization in LLVM.
and for sure there will be some. Good that FreeBSD will have non-GNU
compiler soon :)
* Pawel Worach pawel.wor...@gmail.com wrote:
So runtime performance is on par with gcc, code size is a bit bigger
so there is still room for optimization in LLVM.
I don't agree on the code size. Code size is comparable. I just did a
quick ls through /bin. There also seem to be a lot of cases
Hello list
Let me preface this by saying that I do not have coding
knowledge/experience, but I am willing to donate my time to help test
things if somebody is already working on this. Hopefully, this will
prevent most of the potential feel free to submit patches responses
:)
Is there any work
Is there any work going on to make sysinstall recognize and abe able
to create and work with GJOURNAL and ZFS? In the days of 1,5-2,0
terabyte harddrives, UFS2 + SoftUpdates simply doesn't cut it anymore,
UFS2+SoftUpdates works fine on properly configured UFS2 - and very fast.
Why you need
UFS2+SoftUpdates works fine on properly configured UFS2 - and very fast.
Yes, UFS2+SoftUpdates is very fast, however, in the case of a power
loss or having to pull the plug on a locked up system, it has a
noticeably higher chance of leaving you with an unbootable system than
if you were using
On 9/6/09 15:57, Dan Naumov wrote:
UFS2+SoftUpdates works fine on properly configured UFS2 - and very fast.
Yes, UFS2+SoftUpdates is very fast, however, in the case of a power
loss or having to pull the plug on a locked up system, it has a
noticeably higher chance of leaving you with an
On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 04:57:30PM +0200, Dan Naumov wrote:
UFS2+SoftUpdates works fine on properly configured UFS2 - and very fast.
Yes, UFS2+SoftUpdates is very fast, however, in the case of a power
loss or having to pull the plug on a locked up system, it has a
noticeably higher chance of
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Vincent Hoffmanvi...@unsane.co.uk wrote:
[snip]
That said, there have been a few projects to update/replace/whatever
sysinstall, look at the desktopBSD installer (bsdinstaller) and
finstall. I'm not sure what the status of either of these 2 are though.
I was
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Dan Naumovdan.nau...@gmail.com wrote:
Great! I am downloading
http://snapshots.pfsense.org/FreeBSD_8_0/FreeBSD-20090608-1522-8.0-CURRENT.iso.gz
as we speak and will give it a whirl within the next few days. Any
plans to do similar snapshot builds of -STABLE?
I
Interestingly in my experience its been the opposite, I've lost a few
ext3 filesystems though bad power, same for NTFS (NT4, less so with
200x) but as yet never for ufs2 (fsck has always fixed it.)
In worse cases it required manual attention :) UFS is used and improved
over 20 years, it's
noticeably higher chance of leaving you with an unbootable system than
if you were using Linux with ext3/ext4 or Windows with NTFS.
Can you back this up? I cannot recall having ever rendered a FreeBSD
system unbootable due to UFS/UFS2 problems after a power failure or
I can confirm the
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Dan Naumovdan.nau...@gmail.com wrote:
What arch are these snapshots, are they amd64 or i386? Speaking of
-STABLE snapshots, since they are a more slowly moving target than
-CURRENT, 1 snapshot every week or so would definately be enough :)
These are i386
Great! I am downloading
http://snapshots.pfsense.org/FreeBSD_8_0/FreeBSD-20090608-1522-8.0-CURRENT.iso.gz
as we speak and will give it a whirl within the next few days. Any
plans to do similar snapshot builds of -STABLE?
- Dan Naumov
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Scott
Dan Naumov wrote:
Hello list
Let me preface this by saying that I do not have coding
knowledge/experience, but I am willing to donate my time to help test
things if somebody is already working on this. Hopefully, this will
prevent most of the potential feel free to submit patches responses
What arch are these snapshots, are they amd64 or i386? Speaking of
-STABLE snapshots, since they are a more slowly moving target than
-CURRENT, 1 snapshot every week or so would definately be enough :)
- Dan Naumov
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Scott Ullrichsullr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue,
Can you back this up? I cannot recall having ever rendered a FreeBSD
system unbootable due to UFS/UFS2 problems after a power failure or
crash. I once had a problem with snapshots that made background fsck
fail and crash the system, but it was fixable by booting single user and
running fsck
problem has since been fixed.
I've had several cases that needed manual fsck. After I turned off
background fsck, the problems stopped. These days background_fsck=NO
is a standard part of my rc.conf.
and mine.
actually snapshots doesn't work on large partitions - could simply crash.
that's
Hmm I disagree about large fs have large files. We have inherited quite a
few mail servers at work with 1 TB + fs. They had 10 of millions of files.
When we had a failure and had one reboot it was a nightmare, took ages to
fix. Needless to say this is all on a zfs backed nfs filer now thank god
I
18 matches
Mail list logo
