Re: Please explain make -j to my little brain
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 17:06, martinko wrote: > i remember from mailing lists there used to be a problem with using "-j" > while compiling kernel or world or ports or sth. is it resolved now pls? "make -j N" has never been a supported option for ports. It is supported for buildworld and buildkernel, but if something goes wrong with the build then the first thing you should do is try the build again without a -j flag. JN ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Please explain make -j to my little brain
Bill Moran wrote: > On Mon, 15 May 2006 11:12:33 +0100 > Ashley Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi >> >> I've read the following snippet out of the handbook hundreds of times and >> still don't understand it. I even asked one of the developers I work with >> and he was baffled too. >> >>> It is now possible to specify a -j option to make which will cause it to >>> spawn several simultaneous processes. This is most useful on multi-CPU >>> machines. However, since much of the compiling process is IO bound rather >>> than CPU bound it is also useful on single CPU machines. >> What I want to know is, if compiling is IO bound, and you increase the >> number >> of simultaneous processes compiling your world, where do the extra processes >> get data from if the IO bandwidth is all used. >> >> Have I misunderstood the term IO bound? Please help, I feel like a right >> tool. > > The key to that quote is the placement of the term "much". As in "much of > the compiling process" ... not all of it. > > Generally, while one process is waiting on disk IO, another can be using > the CPU. As a result, you can get closer to 100% usage of the machine, > which won't happen if you batch the whole thing. > >> Just as a side line... does anybody know the best -j value to build world on >> a >> 4-core box? > > I generally quadruple the # of cores, so I'd use -j16. I couldn't tell you > authoritatively what is _best_, though. > hi, i remember from mailing lists there used to be a problem with using "-j" while compiling kernel or world or ports or sth. is it resolved now pls? cheers, martin ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Please explain make -j to my little brain
On Monday 15 May 2006 11:23, Richard Collyer wrote: > The way I understand it is that 1 core would do this... > > compile read disk compile read disk ... compile > > It wont be reading when it is compiling and cant compile when its > reading so if you do -j 2 even on a single core machine it could do: > > compile read disk complile read disk ... compile > read disk complile read disk ... compile read disk > > Which means neither the CPU or the disks are idle resulting in faster > performance. Thanks Richard + Bill I get it now. Presumably with faster disks, the lower the number of make processes you require. Ashley -- "If you do it the stupid way, you will have to do it again" - Gregory Chudnovsky ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Please explain make -j to my little brain
On Mon, 15 May 2006 11:12:33 +0100 Ashley Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi > > I've read the following snippet out of the handbook hundreds of times and > still don't understand it. I even asked one of the developers I work with > and he was baffled too. > > > It is now possible to specify a -j option to make which will cause it to > > spawn several simultaneous processes. This is most useful on multi-CPU > > machines. However, since much of the compiling process is IO bound rather > > than CPU bound it is also useful on single CPU machines. > > What I want to know is, if compiling is IO bound, and you increase the number > of simultaneous processes compiling your world, where do the extra processes > get data from if the IO bandwidth is all used. > > Have I misunderstood the term IO bound? Please help, I feel like a right > tool. The key to that quote is the placement of the term "much". As in "much of the compiling process" ... not all of it. Generally, while one process is waiting on disk IO, another can be using the CPU. As a result, you can get closer to 100% usage of the machine, which won't happen if you batch the whole thing. > Just as a side line... does anybody know the best -j value to build world on > a > 4-core box? I generally quadruple the # of cores, so I'd use -j16. I couldn't tell you authoritatively what is _best_, though. -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Please explain make -j to my little brain
Ashley Moran wrote: Hi I've read the following snippet out of the handbook hundreds of times and still don't understand it. I even asked one of the developers I work with and he was baffled too. It is now possible to specify a -j option to make which will cause it to spawn several simultaneous processes. This is most useful on multi-CPU machines. However, since much of the compiling process is IO bound rather than CPU bound it is also useful on single CPU machines. What I want to know is, if compiling is IO bound, and you increase the number of simultaneous processes compiling your world, where do the extra processes get data from if the IO bandwidth is all used. Have I misunderstood the term IO bound? Please help, I feel like a right tool. Just as a side line... does anybody know the best -j value to build world on a 4-core box? The way I understand it is that 1 core would do this... compile read disk compile read disk ... compile It wont be reading when it is compiling and cant compile when its reading so if you do -j 2 even on a single core machine it could do: compile read disk complile read disk ... compile read disk complile read disk ... compile read disk Which means neither the CPU or the disks are idle resulting in faster performance. Cheers Richard ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Please explain.
My question regarding the 2 extremely major flaws in FreeBSD are being addressed as I have learned from mature FreeBSD developers, due to my question. Therefore many linux-fanatics who are focussed on an only-linux world will no longer be able to use this issue. These two stop-gap items will be at the forefront of the work for the next year, along with a major move to start removing the BGL (Big Giant Lock, also known as the MP lock) from code inherited from 4.x ...that is the one mentioned on dragonfly page too Regarding the people who e-mailed me regarding mySQL on FreeBSD just Google it: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=performance+freebsd+mysql ..as you can see there are issues but they are being solved. Furthermore... This age actually tells me that my assertions are true regarding freeBSD's problems: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/5-roadmap/article.html This page also explains to me that these problems will be completely fixed and that once FreeBSD 5.x is completely finished and stable that It will be the best choice in operating systems. I knew I wasn't trolling, but too many people sent me horrible hatred messages. Furthermore: HawkinsOS is a modified FreeBSD 5.x that retains the BSD license and continues to give credit to the FreeBSD group, as well as once this project is started will donate to the organization... So why would so many people from so many lists say I'm doing illegal licesing things, etc.? It also retains complete compatibilty to FreeBSD, which I've made sure to help the FreeBSD project, as this is one issue where linux has been successful. I'm a FreeBSD fan and I always will be and I'm glade this issues are being taken care of and I understand the money wasn't there like it was for Linux. Please do not get the idea that I was trying to harass and troll. I'm certainly glade we got that all taken care of. - Original Message - From: "Julian Elischer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 2:33 AM Subject: Re: Please explain. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > 2 Major Issues: > > > > - FreeBSD has a processor affinity design issue > > > thanks for the non combatative and diplomatically styled message? > > > > > - The core kernel issues with FreeBSD is the horrible threading > > support.There is so much crap in FreeBSD kernel. The multithreading issue in > > freebsd has been delayed for nearly 6 years. They have just made work > > arounds, not fixing the actual problem. It seems that the only real BSD that > > has made big progress on the core issues is DragonflyBSD. > > Dragonfly BSD is a branch of freeBSD that we are all watching with great > interest. The advantage that is available there is the decision to go back > to teh drawing board and start from scratch, thereby breaking a lot, in the > hope of being able to fix it again when teh parts afe all completed. It > is a very interesting experiment and as such, FreeBSD developers in general > are watching with interest. > > > > > It appears that FreeBSD have a clear Multi-threading lock-in issue that > > needs to be fixed. Not work arounds. According to many freebsd developers > > nobody simply wants to fix this, is it true that the current smp work are > > just 'work-arounds' not real fixing? > > Well if you could explain yourself in English I'd have more of a chance > of answering your questions. The big challenge with FreeBSD and MP is that > we have to get from a "here" (where there was no MP at all) the a "there" > (where there is), while having every step of the way between being a runnable > stable (within reason) system. This greatly limits how things are done. > The current SMP work is not just "workarounds" but rather steps needed > to get from A to B. Sometimes you can't see what the final picture is > by looking at an intermediate step in isolation. > > > > > The only thing holding FreeBSD back is the Multithreading issue. > > I wish you would explain this statement. It could be interpretted in so > many ways that it really is almost meaningless. (Some of the interpretatiosn > however are not..) > > > > > Please clarify this. > > Sure.. how about you clarify your question first however. > > > > > > > ___ > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-smp > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > > > > ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Please explain. (What is HawkinsOS?)
Ok, I just wanted an answer and I already got a *few* good answers and I DONT WANT A WAR. Yes, HawkinsOS is FreeBSD 5.x based and the goal is to donate back to the community, but this is irrelevant! The questions were not even over HawkinsOS. Let's all refrain from starting a huge arguement I have already received my answers. - Original Message - From: "Technical Director" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 7:13 AM Subject: Re: Please explain. (What is HawkinsOS?) > > Err, maybe you should use ... HawkinsOS??? > > T.J.HAWKINS Secure, Stable, Supported Operating System... > > I really enjoyed that. > > Maybe this inquiry is to get the developers to work out HawkinsOS, > whatever version of FreeBSD you sed'd s/FreeBSD/HawkinsOS/g, problems > with multi-threading? > > My troll addition. > > PS > > Your site says you are a Programmer, providing proof of concepts for what > you are discussing shouldn't be to hard. > > *** > > On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Your taking it the wrong way, I was simply asking a question to the > > developers to confirm this. > > > > I have standardized on FreeBSD. > > > > I apologized if I made it seem like I was trolling, not my intention. > > > > If a business were to standardize on FreeBSD, they would love to know if the > > multithreading issues would be fixed completely correctly not just > > 'work-arounds'. > > > > > > sorry and thanks > > - Original Message ----- > > From: "Chris Laverdure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 5:22 PM > > Subject: Re: Please explain. > > > > > > > On Sun, 2004-09-19 at 02:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Ask the FreeBSD developers, any of them with honesty should tell you or > > > > proof me false. I dare you to proof this false, I would be so happy if > > you > > > > did. Just because I'm using MS Mailer does not reflect whom I am. I have > > > > only 1 MS workstation with 9 others unix. > > > > > > > > I expected a mature response from most of you, calling names is NOT the > > way > > > > to resolve problems. I just want an answer to see if this is true. > > > > > > > > **Is it true**? This is what I've noticed myself and many high-scale > > > > developers. > > > > > > > > Thank you > > > > > > 1) The burden of proof is on the person making the allegations. > > > > > > 2) Calling a troll on being a troll is mature. > > > > > > 3) If you believe it to be true, then don't use FreeBSD. Nobody is tying > > > your hands here. You believe DragonFlyBSD to be superior? Then use it. > > > > > > Maybe I just don't see the big deal here, but the developers owe you > > > nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > > > ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Please explain.
Mr. Watson, you have addressed my questions greatly and I do agree that it will take years to successfully tackle the issue but when FreeBSD has had less funding than Linux it's obvious that it's developers have made huge progress and that I'm proud of. Your response was alot better than yelling the word troll or other things. FreeBSD is aware of the issues apparently and is working. - Original Message - From: "Robert Watson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 11:31 AM Subject: Re: Please explain. > > On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > 2 Major Issues: > > > > - FreeBSD has a processor affinity design issue > > Odd statement, but I'm not sure what it means. FreeBSD uses an SMP model > similar to that used by Sun, SGI, and other operating system and hardware > vendors who are clearly aware of affinity concerns, and who have operating > systems that scale pretty amazingly on SMP and non-SMP multi-processor > systems. > > > - The core kernel issues with FreeBSD is the horrible threading > > support.There is so much crap in FreeBSD kernel. The multithreading > > issue in freebsd has been delayed for nearly 6 years. They have just > > made work arounds, not fixing the actual problem. It seems that the only > > real BSD that has made big progress on the core issues is DragonflyBSD. > > This is also an odd statement. FreeBSD is following a well-understood and > widely implemented model for SMP scalability, although somewhat refined as > a result of starting on it after the R&D curve that Sun, IBM, SGI, HP, > etc, got to pay for. However, any major software project of this sort > takes years to complete -- Linux is only just getting to reasonable SMP > scalability after a good 6+ years of investment by some pretty major > players. Doesn't help that Linus turns down patches from SGI that help a > lot though :-). > > BTW, I've spent a lot of time looking at the DragonFly approach, and I met > with Matt for quite a while at USENIX to talk to him about the approach. I > have a number of concerns about it -- I think the premise is very > interesting, but that the results aren't yet there to prove the model. In > particular, there's a huge volume of code in their system that has not > been addressed, and a lot of complexity that will need to be handled > before the SMP primitives they're using have proven that they offer the > desired performance advantage. We have the opportunity of using a hybrid > model, and have been exploring some of the ideas present in DFBSD (and, > one should point out, many other SMP systems). > > A lot of other systems have opted to use elements similar to those > primitives, but in a much more limited way due to the performance costs. > For example, locking services into particular CPUs prevents the scheduler > from balancing load between the CPUs in an service-transparent way. In > the DFBSD model, load balancing must be implemented separately for each > service, requiring extensive modifications to the services. I.e., the > model may indeed offer benefits, but the cost of doing the work will be > high, and the time to complete it long. We'll adopt elements of the > design as they prove to make sense, as we do with all other open source > operating systems (and they do with us!). > > > It appears that FreeBSD have a clear Multi-threading lock-in issue that > > needs to be fixed. Not work arounds. According to many freebsd > > developers nobody simply wants to fix this, is it true that the current > > smp work are just 'work-arounds' not real fixing? > > > > The only thing holding FreeBSD back is the Multithreading issue. > > I think this is a pretty odd claim -- FreeBSD 5.x scales much better than > 4.x on multiple processors, allowing large parts of the kernel to run in > parallel on different CPUs. The performance results are there, showing > 1.4x - 1.6x speedup in SMP tasks with MySQL. > > I saw elsewhere in the thread that someone suggested Darwin doesn't have > SMP problems to address. Darwin is actually in an almost identical > position to us, having basic VM, kernel memory allocation, and scheduling > outside the Giant lock. They took the route of breaking the BSD parts of > their kernel into two "funnels", the network funnel, and "the rest". Our > 5.3 release will actually be much better off than Darwin on SMP by > allowing many threads of the network stack to run on different CPUs, more > support for preemption and low-latency operation. I've talked with Apple > pretty extensively about their SMP work, and met with their kernel team to > discuss their work. > > Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Principal Research Scientist, McAfee Research > > > ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Please explain.
Tom Rhodes wrote: On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 17:14:22 +0200 Miguel Mendez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 16:57:00 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dag-Erling Smørgrav) wrote: Hi, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: It appears that FreeBSD have a clear Multi-threading lock-in issue that needs to be fixed. Not work arounds. According to many freebsd developers nobody simply wants to fix this, is it true that the current smp work are just 'work-arounds' not real fixing? Did David Rhodus put you up to this? You should just tell him to do his own dirty work. Why don't you and Bosko leave the DragonFlyBSD people alone? I don't get it. Are you jealous of their work or what? You're not helping inter-camp relations if you pick on them every time you have an opportunity. Oh back off; you obviously have only a small part of the story. Or perhaps he notices that DES pulled an attack out of thin air, which was unprovoked. The best offense, in this case, is to STFU about your personal feelings about the works of another project. Nobody's getting very far making these attacks. I'm sure David would post anything he wants to without resorting to silly games. You're correct; he would just slander throughout forums such as /. and the like; that is sooo much better then coming here. Yet, it does keep our lists a little cleaner. Funny, this entire thread only seems to be polluting the lists. How about you (yes, all you who shout ``don't feed the trolls'') actually _stop_ feeding them for once (or give the guy a reasonable answer; his question was horribly misinformed, but you would have shut him up sooner with facts, rather than attacks), stop making baseless claims, stop attacking other camps, stop attacking each other. I'm sure I'm going to get a bunch of cruft for this. But seriously, quit acking like a bunch of damned 5 year old girls, pulling each other's hair and grow the hell up! --Devon ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Please explain.
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 17:14:22 +0200 Miguel Mendez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 16:57:00 +0200 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dag-Erling Smørgrav) wrote: > > Hi, > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > It appears that FreeBSD have a clear Multi-threading lock-in issue > > > that needs to be fixed. Not work arounds. According to many freebsd > > > developers nobody simply wants to fix this, is it true that the > > > current smp work are just 'work-arounds' not real fixing? > > > > Did David Rhodus put you up to this? You should just tell him to do > > his own dirty work. > > Why don't you and Bosko leave the DragonFlyBSD people alone? I don't get > it. Are you jealous of their work or what? You're not helping > inter-camp relations if you pick on them every time you have an > opportunity. Oh back off; you obviously have only a small part of the story. > > I'm sure David would post anything he wants to without resorting to > silly games. You're correct; he would just slander throughout forums such as /. and the like; that is sooo much better then coming here. Yet, it does keep our lists a little cleaner. -- Tom Rhodes ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Please explain.
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 16:57:00 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dag-Erling Smørgrav) wrote: Hi, > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > It appears that FreeBSD have a clear Multi-threading lock-in issue > > that needs to be fixed. Not work arounds. According to many freebsd > > developers nobody simply wants to fix this, is it true that the > > current smp work are just 'work-arounds' not real fixing? > > Did David Rhodus put you up to this? You should just tell him to do > his own dirty work. Why don't you and Bosko leave the DragonFlyBSD people alone? I don't get it. Are you jealous of their work or what? You're not helping inter-camp relations if you pick on them every time you have an opportunity. I'm sure David would post anything he wants to without resorting to silly games. Cheers, -- Miguel Mendez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.energyhq.es.eu.org PGP Key: 0xDC8514F1 Note: All HTML and non-english mail goes to /dev/null pgpya1QVwr32Q.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Please explain.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It appears that FreeBSD have a clear Multi-threading lock-in issue > that needs to be fixed. Not work arounds. According to many freebsd > developers nobody simply wants to fix this, is it true that the > current smp work are just 'work-arounds' not real fixing? Did David Rhodus put you up to this? You should just tell him to do his own dirty work. BTW, the FreeBSD Foundation (http://www.freebsd-foundation.org/) is an independent legal entity which supports, but is not identical with, the FreeBSD Project (http://www.freebsd.org/). Furthermore, be advised that significant portions of FreeBSD were released under licenses that include terms like those reproduced below, and that your web site, http://www.hawkinsos.com/, is in breach of those terms. * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software *must display the following acknowledgements: * This product includes software developed by Jason R. Thorpe * for And Communications, http://www.and.com/ .\" 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software .\"must display the following acknowledgement: .\" This product includes software developed by Winning Strategies, Inc. # 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software #must display the following acknowledgement: # This product includes software developed by the NetBSD # Foundation, Inc. and its contributors. * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software *must display the following acknowledgement: *"This product includes cryptographic software written by * Eric Young ([EMAIL PROTECTED])" DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Please explain. (What is HawkinsOS?)
Err, maybe you should use ... HawkinsOS??? T.J.HAWKINS Secure, Stable, Supported Operating System... I really enjoyed that. Maybe this inquiry is to get the developers to work out HawkinsOS, whatever version of FreeBSD you sed'd s/FreeBSD/HawkinsOS/g, problems with multi-threading? My troll addition. PS Your site says you are a Programmer, providing proof of concepts for what you are discussing shouldn't be to hard. *** On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Your taking it the wrong way, I was simply asking a question to the > developers to confirm this. > > I have standardized on FreeBSD. > > I apologized if I made it seem like I was trolling, not my intention. > > If a business were to standardize on FreeBSD, they would love to know if the > multithreading issues would be fixed completely correctly not just > 'work-arounds'. > > > sorry and thanks > - Original Message - > From: "Chris Laverdure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 5:22 PM > Subject: Re: Please explain. > > > > On Sun, 2004-09-19 at 02:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Ask the FreeBSD developers, any of them with honesty should tell you or > > > proof me false. I dare you to proof this false, I would be so happy if > you > > > did. Just because I'm using MS Mailer does not reflect whom I am. I have > > > only 1 MS workstation with 9 others unix. > > > > > > I expected a mature response from most of you, calling names is NOT the > way > > > to resolve problems. I just want an answer to see if this is true. > > > > > > **Is it true**? This is what I've noticed myself and many high-scale > > > developers. > > > > > > Thank you > > > > 1) The burden of proof is on the person making the allegations. > > > > 2) Calling a troll on being a troll is mature. > > > > 3) If you believe it to be true, then don't use FreeBSD. Nobody is tying > > your hands here. You believe DragonFlyBSD to be superior? Then use it. > > > > Maybe I just don't see the big deal here, but the developers owe you > > nothing. > > > > > > > > ___ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
TROLLING!! (Re: Please explain.)
Look. It's simple. Don't come on to a FreeBSD mailing list calling FreeBSD names, and then get upset when people call you a Troll. If you don't like how FreeBSD works or how it's being developed, use something else, or help the developers improve it. Otherwise, get the hell off this mailing list. Go to slashdot or something. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ask the FreeBSD developers, any of them with honesty should tell you or > proof me false. I dare you to proof this false, I would be so happy if you > did. Just because I'm using MS Mailer does not reflect whom I am. I have > only 1 MS workstation with 9 others unix. > > I expected a mature response from most of you, calling names is NOT the way > to resolve problems. I just want an answer to see if this is true. > > **Is it true**? This is what I've noticed myself and many high-scale > developers. > > Thank you > > - Original Message - > From: "steveb99" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 8:09 PM > Subject: RE: Please explain. > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > > Emanuel Strobl > > > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 5:41 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: Please explain. > > > > > > Am Sonntag, 19. September 2004 01:08 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > > 2 Major Issues: > > > > > > Why should one answer to this email? Use what ever you think > > > qualifies your needs! > > > > > > > Just a troll, look at all the cross-posting. > > > > Steve Barnette > > > > > > > > ___ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Please explain.
In the last episode (Sep 18), [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > Your taking it the wrong way, I was simply asking a question to the > developers to confirm this. > > I have standardized on FreeBSD. > > I apologized if I made it seem like I was trolling, not my intention. > > If a business were to standardize on FreeBSD, they would love to know if the > multithreading issues would be fixed completely correctly not just > 'work-arounds'. So far you have only mentioned the word "issues". Do you have a particular one in mind? Maybe your questions would be better answered on the freebsd-threads list. Make sure you include your OS version, threads library you are using, the application you are using, and your specific problem. CC: redirected appropriately. -- Dan Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Please explain.
Hi, Martin P. Hellwig wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, fair enough but it still comes down to if you have a other OS which does what you need than use that OS. SMP support is only one thing to consider. But perhaps you require the BSD license for you biz? Actually I'm not very knowledged (far from) about design and multithread issues however from what I read is that mulitple CPU's is a real pain and the one who managed it the best is SUN (only read that - not sure about it), but there working 10 years on this issues and get paid for The main difference is that they live from selling the hardware. If their operating system would not support their very own hardware up to the extent, their sales would drop. Sun's support for multiple CPUs includes also things which are not even supported by standard x86 hardware. Try to exchange a CPU while your PC based machine is running. Erich ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Please explain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your taking it the wrong way, I was simply asking a question to the developers to confirm this. I have standardized on FreeBSD. I apologized if I made it seem like I was trolling, not my intention. If a business were to standardize on FreeBSD, they would love to know if the multithreading issues would be fixed completely correctly not just 'work-arounds'. Well, fair enough but it still comes down to if you have a other OS which does what you need than use that OS. But perhaps you require the BSD license for you biz? Actually I'm not very knowledged (far from) about design and multithread issues however from what I read is that mulitple CPU's is a real pain and the one who managed it the best is SUN (only read that - not sure about it), but there working 10 years on this issues and get paid for it. So what can you filter out of this? If you need your idea of multithreading, then let it develop and give it to the BSD community, otherwise use/buy an other OS. That multithreading issue is indeed a touchy point because it is so open for other interpretation, which one group sees a fine solution is for the other a low-profile dirty hack. Some hang more over to a clean design and other like designs but prefer something working. DragonFly has indeed taken a different approach about solving this issue, however which OS will provide the best solution will be proven over time. So IMHO your original question is not trolling but you simply ask it a couple of years to early :-) -- mph ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Please explain.
I never saw this email from timh so I'm replying to this reply instead.. --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: processor affinity design issue.. >> i.e.. processes stay on the cpu they are spawned on..which is a big problem for mysql which explains why it performs better on other systems. yes We ALL know what processor affinity is. What makes you say we have not done anything aout this.? We have are working on a new scheduler (ULE) that is designed to implement processor affinity as a basic part of its functionality. When we are happy wih it we'll make it standard. Furthermore, the SMP issue is a common problem among many FreeBSD developers whom have told me the same, there is alot of this >>information all over the internet. FreeBSD is unable to perform good on multiple CPUs, >>the fixes are just work arounds. What have they told you? SMP in FreeBSD is coming along quite nicely as far as I see.. We now have native SMP scaleable threading in the default system, and larger and larger parts of the system ara able to take advantage of Multiple processors to parallelise their work. Unless if the freebsd community has just started to fix the multithreading issue, it's a huge problem. We've been working hard at it for 4 years (where did you get 6?) and we are seeing real results.. It sounds to me like you haven't actually tried it out yet. We hav elots to do yet, but there's been a lot of progress. BTW there is something going on with linux and mysql.. It looks like they have some optimisations in there that are not SMP related as their uniprocessor numbers are also better, and I've heard that when you run a linux mysql binary under freeBSD you also get similar improvements so My money is on the compile options or something ;-) Darwin does not have this problem whatsoever. Dawin was designed from the beginning for SMP. Mach was SMP capable from the firt release I ever worked on which was 2.0. Why do I care? This is a silly question. I have 2 windows PCs here, I have 9 other workstations that all run unix. I am a server manager and I do consulting work for freebsd/linux. Windows came free so why not? I don't do business on it. I've been a really huge FreeBSD supporter.. but I am really concerned about this issue which has been an issue for so long. I suggest that you follow what is actually going on rather than listenning to "the internet". thanks, tim h. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Please explain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2 Major Issues: - FreeBSD has a processor affinity design issue thanks for the non combatative and diplomatically styled message? - The core kernel issues with FreeBSD is the horrible threading support.There is so much crap in FreeBSD kernel. The multithreading issue in freebsd has been delayed for nearly 6 years. They have just made work arounds, not fixing the actual problem. It seems that the only real BSD that has made big progress on the core issues is DragonflyBSD. Dragonfly BSD is a branch of freeBSD that we are all watching with great interest. The advantage that is available there is the decision to go back to teh drawing board and start from scratch, thereby breaking a lot, in the hope of being able to fix it again when teh parts afe all completed. It is a very interesting experiment and as such, FreeBSD developers in general are watching with interest. It appears that FreeBSD have a clear Multi-threading lock-in issue that needs to be fixed. Not work arounds. According to many freebsd developers nobody simply wants to fix this, is it true that the current smp work are just 'work-arounds' not real fixing? Well if you could explain yourself in English I'd have more of a chance of answering your questions. The big challenge with FreeBSD and MP is that we have to get from a "here" (where there was no MP at all) the a "there" (where there is), while having every step of the way between being a runnable stable (within reason) system. This greatly limits how things are done. The current SMP work is not just "workarounds" but rather steps needed to get from A to B. Sometimes you can't see what the final picture is by looking at an intermediate step in isolation. The only thing holding FreeBSD back is the Multithreading issue. I wish you would explain this statement. It could be interpretted in so many ways that it really is almost meaningless. (Some of the interpretatiosn however are not..) Please clarify this. Sure.. how about you clarify your question first however. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-smp To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Please explain.
Your taking it the wrong way, I was simply asking a question to the developers to confirm this. I have standardized on FreeBSD. I apologized if I made it seem like I was trolling, not my intention. If a business were to standardize on FreeBSD, they would love to know if the multithreading issues would be fixed completely correctly not just 'work-arounds'. sorry and thanks - Original Message - From: "Chris Laverdure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 5:22 PM Subject: Re: Please explain. > On Sun, 2004-09-19 at 02:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Ask the FreeBSD developers, any of them with honesty should tell you or > > proof me false. I dare you to proof this false, I would be so happy if you > > did. Just because I'm using MS Mailer does not reflect whom I am. I have > > only 1 MS workstation with 9 others unix. > > > > I expected a mature response from most of you, calling names is NOT the way > > to resolve problems. I just want an answer to see if this is true. > > > > **Is it true**? This is what I've noticed myself and many high-scale > > developers. > > > > Thank you > > 1) The burden of proof is on the person making the allegations. > > 2) Calling a troll on being a troll is mature. > > 3) If you believe it to be true, then don't use FreeBSD. Nobody is tying > your hands here. You believe DragonFlyBSD to be superior? Then use it. > > Maybe I just don't see the big deal here, but the developers owe you > nothing. > > > ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Please explain.
On Sun, 2004-09-19 at 02:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Ask the FreeBSD developers, any of them with honesty should tell you or > proof me false. I dare you to proof this false, I would be so happy if you > did. Just because I'm using MS Mailer does not reflect whom I am. I have > only 1 MS workstation with 9 others unix. > > I expected a mature response from most of you, calling names is NOT the way > to resolve problems. I just want an answer to see if this is true. > > **Is it true**? This is what I've noticed myself and many high-scale > developers. > > Thank you 1) The burden of proof is on the person making the allegations. 2) Calling a troll on being a troll is mature. 3) If you believe it to be true, then don't use FreeBSD. Nobody is tying your hands here. You believe DragonFlyBSD to be superior? Then use it. Maybe I just don't see the big deal here, but the developers owe you nothing. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Please explain.
Ask the FreeBSD developers, any of them with honesty should tell you or proof me false. I dare you to proof this false, I would be so happy if you did. Just because I'm using MS Mailer does not reflect whom I am. I have only 1 MS workstation with 9 others unix. I expected a mature response from most of you, calling names is NOT the way to resolve problems. I just want an answer to see if this is true. **Is it true**? This is what I've noticed myself and many high-scale developers. Thank you - Original Message - From: "steveb99" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 8:09 PM Subject: RE: Please explain. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > Emanuel Strobl > > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 5:41 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Please explain. > > > > Am Sonntag, 19. September 2004 01:08 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > 2 Major Issues: > > > > Why should one answer to this email? Use what ever you think > > qualifies your needs! > > > > Just a troll, look at all the cross-posting. > > Steve Barnette > > > ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Please explain.
Plesae, excuse the messiness of the reply to a poster using MS's broken formatting. --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > processor affinity design issue.. i.e.. processes stay on the cpu > they are > spawned on..which is a big problem for mysql which explains why it > performs > better on other systems. > > Furthermore, the SMP issue is a common problem among many FreeBSD > developers > whom have told me the same, there is alot of this information all > over the > internet. FreeBSD is unable to perform good on multiple CPUs, the > fixes are > just work arounds. > > Unless if the freebsd community has just started to fix the > multithreading > issue, it's a huge problem. Darwin does not have this problem > whatsoever. > > Why do I care? This is a silly question. I have 2 windows PCs here, I > have 9 > other workstations that all run unix. I am a server manager and I do > consulting work for freebsd/linux. Windows came free so why not? I > don't do > business on it. > > I've been a really huge FreeBSD supporter.. but I am really concerned > about > this issue which has been an issue for so long. > > thanks, > tim h. > > - Original Message - > From: "stheg olloydson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 7:05 PM > Subject: Re: Please explain. > > >> >>>From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >>>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >>>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 >>>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600. >>>X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - ns0.secureanonymous.com >>>X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - freebsd.org >>>X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12] >>>X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - tjhawkins.com >>>Subject: Please explain. >>> >>> >>>2 Major Issues: >>> >>>- FreeBSD has a processor affinity design issue >>> >>>- The core kernel issues with FreeBSD is the horrible threading >>>support.There is so much crap in FreeBSD kernel. The > multithreading >>>issue in >>>freebsd has been delayed for nearly 6 years. They have just made > work >>>arounds, not fixing the actual problem. It seems that the only > real BSD that >>>has made big progress on the core issues is DragonflyBSD. >>> >>>It appears that FreeBSD have a clear Multi-threading lock-in issue >> that >>>needs to be fixed. Not work arounds. According to many freebsd >>>developers >>>nobody simply wants to fix this, is it true that the current smp > work >>>are >>>just 'work-arounds' not real fixing? >>> >>>The only thing holding FreeBSD back is the Multithreading issue. >>> >>>Please clarify this. >> >> Hello, >> >> Please clarify your post. You make many claims without any offering >> any examples. >> You claim, "FreeBSD has a processor affinity design issue". What >> exactly is the issue? Give an example, please. >> You claim, "There is so much crap in FreeBSD kernel. The >>multithreading issue in freebsd has been delayed for nearly 6 years. >> They have just made work arounds, not fixing the actual problem." To >> what "crap in the FreeBSD kernel" are you referring? Please post an >> example of the "horrible threading support" and how it should be >>done. How did you arrive at the time span of "6 years"? Who is this >>"They" that has "just made 'work-arounds' not real fixing?" Who are >>these "many >>freebsd developers" to whom you refer? Finally, you >>claim, "The only >> thing holding FreeBSD back is the Multithreading >>issue." Holding it >> back from what? >> Please explain the basis for your assertions so that the community >> may better answer them. >> >> Regards, >> >> Stheg >> >> BTW: Considering you're running a Windows-based OS, not a BSD-based >> one, why do you even care? Hello, Because you failed to offer any proof of your assertions other than repeating them, albeit with the addition of the vague statement that "there is alot [sic] of this information all over the internet [sic]" (which, if were true, begs the questions why are you asking here then), I cannot put any stock in your claims. My apologies to the community for rising to the troll. Yours truly, Stheg __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Please explain.
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Emanuel Strobl > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 5:41 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Please explain. > > Am Sonntag, 19. September 2004 01:08 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > 2 Major Issues: > > Why should one answer to this email? Use what ever you think > qualifies your needs! > Just a troll, look at all the cross-posting. Steve Barnette ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Please explain.
Am Sonntag, 19. September 2004 01:08 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > 2 Major Issues: > > - FreeBSD has a processor affinity design issue > > - The core kernel issues with FreeBSD is the horrible threading > support.There is so much crap in FreeBSD kernel. The multithreading issue > in freebsd has been delayed for nearly 6 years. They have just made work > arounds, not fixing the actual problem. It seems that the only real BSD > that has made big progress on the core issues is DragonflyBSD. > > It appears that FreeBSD have a clear Multi-threading lock-in issue that > needs to be fixed. Not work arounds. According to many freebsd developers > nobody simply wants to fix this, is it true that the current smp work are > just 'work-arounds' not real fixing? > > The only thing holding FreeBSD back is the Multithreading issue. > > Please clarify this. Why should one answer to this email? Use what ever you think qualifies your needs! > > > ___ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Please explain.
>From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600. >X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - ns0.secureanonymous.com >X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - freebsd.org >X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12] >X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - tjhawkins.com >Subject: Please explain. > > >2 Major Issues: > >- FreeBSD has a processor affinity design issue > >- The core kernel issues with FreeBSD is the horrible threading >support.There is so much crap in FreeBSD kernel. The multithreading >issue in >freebsd has been delayed for nearly 6 years. They have just made work >arounds, not fixing the actual problem. It seems that the only real BSD >that >has made big progress on the core issues is DragonflyBSD. > >It appears that FreeBSD have a clear Multi-threading lock-in issue that >needs to be fixed. Not work arounds. According to many freebsd >developers >nobody simply wants to fix this, is it true that the current smp work >are >just 'work-arounds' not real fixing? > >The only thing holding FreeBSD back is the Multithreading issue. > >Please clarify this. Hello, Please clarify your post. You make many claims without any offering any examples. You claim, "FreeBSD has a processor affinity design issue". What exactly is the issue? Give an example, please. You claim, "There is so much crap in FreeBSD kernel. The multithreading issue in freebsd has been delayed for nearly 6 years. They have just made work arounds, not fixing the actual problem." To what "crap in the FreeBSD kernel" are you referring? Please post an example of the "horrible threading support" and how it should be done. How did you arrive at the time span of "6 years"? Who is this "They" that has "just made 'work-arounds' not real fixing?" Who are these "many freebsd developers" to whom you refer? Finally, you claim, "The only thing holding FreeBSD back is the Multithreading issue." Holding it back from what? Please explain the basis for your assertions so that the community may better answer them. Regards, Stheg BTW: Considering you're running a Windows-based OS, not a BSD-based one, why do you even care? ___ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
