On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 11:56:10AM +0700, Henrik Sarvell wrote:
> The fix has been running now for roughly 24 hours with PIDs both below
> and above 16bit with roughly 2-30 requests per second depending on the
> hour, works flawlessly.
>
> One reset from 98304 to 300 has already happened without i
The fix has been running now for roughly 24 hours with PIDs both below
and above 16bit with roughly 2-30 requests per second depending on the
hour, works flawlessly.
One reset from 98304 to 300 has already happened without issues.
Using pil64.
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Alexander Burger w
Hi all,
On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 09:00:21AM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote:
> Fixed pil32 too. I hope I didn't break anything. Tests are welcome!
For the records:
The handling of PIDs in both the 32-bit and the 64-bit versions of
PicoLisp itself was never a problem. They are handled in full 'pid_t
On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 08:01:50AM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote:
> Hi Jorge,
>
> > I’m getting pids well above 64k on my laptop (OS X).
OK
Fixed pil32 too. I hope I didn't break anything. Tests are welcome!
I've uploaded a new version to http://software-lab.de/picoLisp.tgz
♪♫ Alex
--
UNSUBSC
Oh, you mean the 32 bit version of pico lisp? Thats right…
On 06 Aug 2014, at 23:23, Jorge Acereda Maciá wrote:
> It’s a 64bit 8 GB machine. BSDs work differently:
>
> http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/basics-processeshtml
>
> Maximum seems to be 9, at least on Free
That’s not true. The kernel can boot in 64 bit and 32 bit mode (there are
keyboard combos for that). Applications will run in 64 bit mode even when the
kernel is in 32 bit mode.
On 06 Aug 2014, at 23:19, Henrik Sarvell wrote:
> Jorge, forget that question, I just got told that osx only have th
On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 01:19:16PM +0700, Henrik Sarvell wrote:
> Jorge, forget that question, I just got told that osx only have the
> 32bit version.
Yes, but the question is valid. The machine itself might be 64-bit with
a large RAM, and many processes, still running pil32.
♪♫ Alex
--
UNSUBSCR
It’s a 64bit 8 GB machine. BSDs work differently:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/basics-processeshtml
Maximum seems to be 9, at least on FreeBSD.
On 06 Aug 2014, at 23:09, Henrik Sarvell wrote:
> Hi Jorge, how much RAM does it have, is it a 64bit machine?
>
> I
Jorge, forget that question, I just got told that osx only have the
32bit version.
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Henrik Sarvell wrote:
> Hi Jorge, how much RAM does it have, is it a 64bit machine?
>
> I have checked the number Alex mentioned on some of our servers, all
> running Ubuntu 12.04, s
Hi Jorge, how much RAM does it have, is it a 64bit machine?
I have checked the number Alex mentioned on some of our servers, all
running Ubuntu 12.04, servers below 64GB RAM have that number set to
32768 per default, machines with 128GB got 98304.
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Jorge Acereda Ma
Hi Jorge,
> I’m getting pids well above 64k on my laptop (OS X).
Oops. I see. Hmm ...
--
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
I’m getting pids well above 64k on my laptop (OS X).
On 06 Aug 2014, at 22:33, Alexander Burger wrote:
> Hi Randall,
>
>> I believe that modern Linux and FreeBSD implementations use 32 bit
>> ints for the pid_t.
>
> Right.
>
>> There will never be that many processes on a 32 bit
>> OS, but si
Hi Randall,
> I believe that modern Linux and FreeBSD implementations use 32 bit
> ints for the pid_t.
Right.
> There will never be that many processes on a 32 bit
> OS, but since they just go forward until they wrap, getting a pid bigger
> than 16 bits is probably even to be expected.
However,
I believe that modern Linux and FreeBSD implementations use 32 bit
ints for the pid_t. There will never be that many processes on a 32 bit
OS, but since they just go forward until they wrap, getting a pid bigger
than 16 bits is probably even to be expected.
> On Aug 6, 2014, at 11:43 AM, Alexande
14 matches
Mail list logo
