Hi all!
I read http://openbsd.org/security.html (and stable.html), but could
not make
sure about my question.
If today I download old versions (say /pub/OpenBSD/4.0/i386/cd40.iso) of
openbsd, does it already includes the fixes listed in
http://openbsd.org/security.html#40 (or #41)?
Artur Grabowski wrote:
Geoff Steckel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Any argument to experience must be from similar actual implementations
using threads and another model, such as multiple processes with
interprocess communications.
Sure. I'll pick up the challenge.
At work we have a server that
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:14:14AM +0100, Artur Grabowski wrote:
Geoff Steckel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Any argument to experience must be from similar actual
implementations using threads and another model, such as multiple
processes with interprocess communications.
Sure. I'll pick
On Feb 20, 2008 5:48 AM, Douglas A. Tutty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While this kind of setup is well beyond my pay-grade, looking just at
the issue of, in effect, using threads to share a cache to avoid hitting
the disk, I wonder why using a memory filesystem as the common cache
wouldn't work.
I wonder where the perceived bottleneck is. I mean, you have two boxes
connected by ethernet (whatever speed), and you're running a sftp bulk
file transfer. What is the limiting factor? Are the boxes less than
20% idle? Is the nework saturated or is there room for more throughput?
Much of
On Feb 19, 2008 9:30 AM, chris rapier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder where the perceived bottleneck is. I mean, you have two boxes
connected by ethernet (whatever speed), and you're running a sftp bulk
file transfer. What is the limiting factor? Are the boxes less than
20% idle? Is
Hi, since I'm the one that started all of this I thought I would take a
moment to say a couple of words.
As Ben said - we aren't wedded to the idea of threads. They were a
useful path to take in order to prove the usefulness of some sort of
parallelization in OpenSSH. I think we've proved its
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 04:22:42PM -0500, Chris Rapier wrote:
As Ben said - we aren't wedded to the idea of threads. They were a
useful path to take in order to prove the usefulness of some sort of
parallelization in OpenSSH. I think we've proved its usefulness (and
believe it or not, a lot
On 2/19/08 2:04 AM, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
I wonder where the perceived bottleneck is. I mean, you have two boxes
connected by ethernet (whatever speed), and you're running a sftp bulk
file transfer. What is the limiting factor? Are the boxes less than
20% idle? Is the nework saturated or
On 2/17/08, Marc Balmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geoff Steckel wrote:
Threads or any other form of uncontrolled resource sharing
are very bad ideas.
that might be true for those that don't understand threads.
for other it can be highly benefitial.
Indeed, threads are bad strikes me as
--- Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want to run more of the same you fork.
Threads usefulness are limited in scope. Threads dangers are endless.
Nonetheless there are good reasons for threading; just not as many as
people give it credit for. Ssh is not one of those use
Gregg Reynolds wrote:
On 2/17/08, Marc Balmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geoff Steckel wrote:
Threads or any other form of uncontrolled resource sharing
are very bad ideas.
that might be true for those that don't understand threads.
for other it can be highly benefitial.
Indeed, threads are
If you want to run more of the same you fork.
Threads usefulness are limited in scope. Threads dangers are endless.
Nonetheless there are good reasons for threading; just not as many as
people give it credit for. Ssh is not one of those use cases where
threading is important.
On Sun, Feb 17,
On Feb 17, 2008 8:01 PM, Geoff Steckel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gregg Reynolds wrote:
On 2/17/08, Marc Balmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geoff Steckel wrote:
Threads or any other form of uncontrolled resource sharing
are very bad ideas.
that might be true for those that don't understand
David Higgs wrote:
On Feb 17, 2008 8:01 PM, Geoff Steckel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gregg Reynolds wrote:
On 2/17/08, Marc Balmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geoff Steckel wrote:
Threads or any other form of uncontrolled resource sharing
are very bad ideas.
that might be true for those that
--- Geoff Steckel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
threads is a particular programming model of multiple execution
contexts in a (mostly) shared memory and (mostly) shared resource
environment which is not cost-effective for producing reliable
software.
Only because people design threaded programs
Geoff Steckel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
threads is a particular programming model of multiple execution
contexts in a (mostly) shared memory and (mostly) shared resource
environment which is not cost-effective for producing reliable software.
Are you really unable to see the irony in
On Feb 17, 2008 11:16 PM, Geoff Steckel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Higgs wrote:
Assuming that a software program is not system-critical or requires
high security, and it benefits greatly from a shared memory/resource
model, I fail to see why threading can not be cost-effective.
May I
Marco Peereboom wrote:
If you want to run more of the same you fork.
Threads usefulness are limited in scope. Threads dangers are endless.
Nonetheless there are good reasons for threading; just not as many as
people give it credit for. Ssh is not one of those use cases where
threading is
19 matches
Mail list logo
