Thank you all for the inputs.
I understand this is a long grueling process so I will attempt to do things
in approximately following order:
1) prepare a new port for bsd patch
2) make sure new bsd patch has all options of existing gnu patch
3) merge outstanding patches:
Hi All,
Can anyone think of any quick pointers as to why some code originally
written under 6.4 amd64 - when re-compiled under 9.0-stable amd64 takes up
a *lot* more memory when running?
The code involved is a sendmail Milter, and a TCP server type program (that
runs up a large number of
- Original Message -
From: Karl Pielorz kpielorz_...@tdx.co.uk
To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 11:12 AM
Subject: Threaded 6.4 code compiled under 9.0 uses a lot more memory?..
Hi All,
Can anyone think of any quick pointers as to why some code
Hi,
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:12:22 +
Karl Pielorz kpielorz_...@tdx.co.uk wrote:
Can anyone think of any quick pointers as to why some code originally
written under 6.4 amd64 - when re-compiled under 9.0-stable amd64
takes up a *lot* more memory when running?
is it still the same
--On 30 October 2012 11:21 + Steven Hartland kill...@multiplay.co.uk
wrote:
They've not been running longing enough yet to see if anything is
'leaking' (i.e. if size/res continues to go up). Just thought I'd ask
if there's a simple/possible explanation for this - and if it's
something
Karl Pielorz kpielorz_...@tdx.co.uk wrote:
Can anyone think of any quick pointers as to why some code originally
written under 6.4 amd64 - when re-compiled under 9.0-stable amd64 takes
up a *lot* more memory when running?
6.4 comes with phkmalloc while 9.0 uses jemalloc. Maybe you are
If this is only difference between gcc34 v gcc42 it's quite spectacular...
--
View this message in context:
http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Threaded-6-4-code-compiled-under-9-0-uses-a-lot-more-memory-tp5756466p5756476.html
Sent from the freebsd-hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--On 30 October 2012 18:27 +0700 Erich Dollansky
erichfreebsdl...@ovitrap.com wrote:
is it still the same compiler?
Depends how you mean 'the same' - on the 6.4 system it shows:
cc (GCC) 3.4.6 [FreeBSD] 20060305
And, on the 9.0-S it shows:
cc (GCC) 4.2.1 20070831 patched [FreeBSD]
--On 30 October 2012 22:59 +1100 Jan Mikkelsen j...@transactionware.com
wrote:
-O2 -pthread -lc_r
They're now compiled under 9.0-S with just:
-O2 -pthread
libc_r is a user mode implementation of pthreads, so there is one actual
kernel thread with a stack. You now have ~700 kernel
Hi,
On 30/10/2012, at 10:12 PM, Karl Pielorz kpielorz_...@tdx.co.uk wrote:
Hi All,
Can anyone think of any quick pointers as to why some code originally written
under 6.4 amd64 - when re-compiled under 9.0-stable amd64 takes up a *lot*
more memory when running?
The code involved is
Hi,
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:59:46 +
Karl Pielorz kpielorz_...@tdx.co.uk wrote:
--On 30 October 2012 18:27 +0700 Erich Dollansky
erichfreebsdl...@ovitrap.com wrote:
is it still the same compiler?
Depends how you mean 'the same' - on the 6.4 system it shows:
cc (GCC) 3.4.6
On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 13:46 +0100, Fabian Keil wrote:
Karl Pielorz kpielorz_...@tdx.co.uk wrote:
Can anyone think of any quick pointers as to why some code originally
written under 6.4 amd64 - when re-compiled under 9.0-stable amd64 takes
up a *lot* more memory when running?
6.4 comes
On 30/10/2012 15:47, Ian Lepore wrote:
On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 13:46 +0100, Fabian Keil wrote:
Karl Pielorz kpielorz_...@tdx.co.uk wrote:
Can anyone think of any quick pointers as to why some code originally
written under 6.4 amd64 - when re-compiled under 9.0-stable amd64 takes
up a *lot*
hi,
as soon as I 'initialize' a virtual disk via gpart, even if nothing
is mounted, the pxeboot adds around 60s delay to show the boot menu,
- I don't know if the delay is in boot or pxeboot.
if I destroy the geom, the the boot menu appears inmediately.
any insight?
danny
--On 30 October 2012 19:43 +0700 Erich Dollansky
erichfreebsdl...@ovitrap.com wrote:
Depends how you mean 'the same' - on the 6.4 system it shows:
cc (GCC) 3.4.6 [FreeBSD] 20060305
And, on the 9.0-S it shows:
cc (GCC) 4.2.1 20070831 patched [FreeBSD]
So 'same' - but different
Some suggestions here, jemalloc, kernel threads are good ones.
Another issue may just be some change for default thread stack size.
This would explain why the RESIDENT set is the same, but the VIRTUAL grew.
-Alfred
On 10/30/12 9:56 AM, Karl Pielorz wrote:
--On 30 October 2012 19:43 +0700
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:48:03AM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Some suggestions here, jemalloc, kernel threads are good ones.
Another issue may just be some change for default thread stack size.
This would explain why the RESIDENT set is the same, but the VIRTUAL grew.
I suggest to take
17 matches
Mail list logo
