On 3 May 2012 23:01, Bryan Drewery br...@shatow.net wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I recently was re-evaluating my needs for a custom kernel vs GENERIC.
One of these was due to QUOTA support, which apparently is not in
GENERIC due to the GIANT lock [1].
This is
Probably not. NFSv4 writes are done exactly the same as NFSv3. (It changes
other stuff, like locking, adding support for ACLs, etc.) I do have a patch
is there any chance to improving it? i mean to cluster writes up to
MAXBSIZE on nfs server, just like local UFS do?
I think The power to serve, pretty much sums it up nicely. :-)
that simple. While whom/what it serve it depends. But it have to serve
someone needs. Contrary to computer owner being a server for someone
else needs :)
now.
While I know this probably seems pointless, based on your
Not really, no. I was referring to the practice of starting a gazillion
services by default, including dbus, avahi, ftp and http services,
file sharing components, and all the rest of the stuff that is now
commonly installed as part of a Linux desktop. SELinux is indeed
one form of hardening,
On Thursday, May 03, 2012 11:48:48 am cz li wrote:
I have some questions.As follows ，The kernel address space is how
much? How it is distributed？ Where can I see?I can adjust it's
bigger?What should I do if I can？The change will make some
applications can not run?
Sorry, my English is poor.
On Wednesday, May 02, 2012 5:16:17 pm Navdeep Parhar wrote:
There seems to be a regression in 8.3 in the way the kernel selects CPUs
for interrupts. For example, cxgb(4) on 8.3 ends up with all
its ithreads on the same CPU (CPU7 in this case).
12 root -68- 0K 816K WAIT7
On Thursday, May 03, 2012 11:23:51 am Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 03/05/2012 18:02 Andriy Gapon said the following:
Here's the latest version of the patches:
http://people.freebsd.org/~avg/zfsboot.patches.4.diff
I've found a couple of problems in the previous version, so here's another
cxgbc0}
12 root -68- 0K 816K WAIT7 0:31 0.00% intr{irq280:
cxgbc0}
Back in the day there used to be code in cxgb to bind different
interrupts to different CPUs but it was removed because the kernel
distributed them across CPUs anyway. So what changed? This appears 8.3
On 05/04/12 10:05, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
cxgbc0}
12 root -68 - 0K 816K WAIT 7 0:31 0.00% intr{irq280: cxgbc0}
Back in the day there used to be code in cxgb to bind different
interrupts to different CPUs but it was removed because the kernel
distributed them across CPUs anyway. So what changed?
*WHY* is Linux so much more popular than the BSDs?
GPL vs BSDL ? (Create a GPLed BSD and see if it takes off.)
the obese cartoon penguin?
Do most people actually prefer the lower quality product?
Popularity is inversly proportional to quality in many
areas, not just OSes.
marketing?
Is there
On 05/04/12 15:11, Dieter BSD wrote:
*WHY* is Linux so much more popular than the BSDs?
Linux is popular because of RedHat. Corporate executives like to pay for
software because it shifts responsibility away from them in the event
that something goes wrong. If something goes wrong with RHEL, the
On Fri, 04 May 2012 15:11:10 -0400
Dieter BSD dieter...@engineer.com wrote:
*WHY* is Linux so much more popular than the BSDs?
My newsbyte answer is:
BSD is Unix for people who love quality software.
Linux is Unix for people who hate Microsoft.
There are a lot more of the latter than the
On May 4, 2012, at 8:42 PM, Mike Meyer wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 15:11:10 -0400
Dieter BSD dieter...@engineer.com wrote:
*WHY* is Linux so much more popular than the BSDs?
My newsbyte answer is:
BSD is Unix for people who love quality software.
Linux is Unix for people who hate
On May 4, 2012, at 9:15 PM, Devin Teske wrote:
On May 4, 2012, at 8:42 PM, Mike Meyer wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 15:11:10 -0400
Dieter BSD dieter...@engineer.com wrote:
*WHY* is Linux so much more popular than the BSDs?
My newsbyte answer is:
BSD is Unix for people who love
I have ubldr loading the ELF kernel on BeagleBone and am now
trying to untangle some of the hacks I used to get this working.
Unfortunately, there's one area of the common loader(8) code
that I really don't understand: How does sys/boot/common/load_elf.c
determine the physical address at which
15 matches
Mail list logo
