Re: DP performance
Guys'n'girls, Just Google for Danial Thom. All I found are messages on *BSD forums/lists with the same proofless and abusing words. M.b. he know something about the subject, but definitely unable to talk about that. PS. I'm just about to mark him twit. 2005/12/3, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hiten Pandya wrote: You obviously did not research on who Matthew Dillon is, otherwise you would know that he has plenty of real world experience. The guy wrote a packet rate controller inspired by basic laws of physics, give him credit instead of being rude. Time will tell whether he was wrong about his arguments on PCI-X or not, and whether our effort with DragonFly is just plain useless; but there is absolutely no need for animosity on the lists. Should you wish to continue debating performance issues then do so with a civil manner. Kind regards, May i second you Hiten. The DragonFly lists are particularly interesting and you always learn things here. Personnally i don't know anything on the subject of this thread and i have enjoyed observing and trying to understand the arguments. Let's hope people make an effort to be civil, for the benefit of everybody. I will add my grain of salt: on the same subject i have enjoyed reading the papers describing the program of André Oppermann for FreeBSD, notably http://people.freebsd.org/~andre/Optimizing%20the%20FreeBSD%20IP%20and%20TCP%20Stack.pdf which has intersection with points that have been discussed here. Finally let me congratulate Matt for his work and hope best chance of success. -- Michel Talon -- Dennis Melentyev
Waiting 15 seconds for SCSI devices to settle *groan*
On 02/12/05, Marcin Jessa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 19:47:52 +0800 Wade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 02/12/05, Emiel Kollof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: See subject for a pet peeve I've had for a while... Might it be an idea to copy FreeBSD here and shorten that to, say, 5 seconds by default? I know it's tunable, but it will shorten boot times a bit for people that are too lazy like me :) That and 15 seconds seems a bit too long. Know of any hardware that actually needs that long to settle in? (and don't you guys go dig up the most antiquated SCSI peripherals that actually do need 15 seconds ;) ) If yes, I'll just shut up about this. Cheers, Emiel -- The real pain for me is, What would you do with the 15 seconds you save once in a while? It's not really a problem and if you see it that way then recompile your kernel like real men do. I see no reason for it. And I do recompile, but you know, most computers these days do not have SCSI, so it seems a bit backwards to overly compensate for a small number of dodgy SCSI devices that take ages to start (when most computers don't have it, and those that do probably don't have said devices). I'd say most people who see this when they install are thinking But I don't have SCSI...
Re: Waiting 15 seconds for SCSI devices to settle *groan*
Wade wrote: On 02/12/05, Emiel Kollof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: See subject for a pet peeve I've had for a while... Might it be an idea to copy FreeBSD here and shorten that to, say, 5 seconds by default? I know it's tunable, but it will shorten boot times a bit for people that are too lazy like me :) That and 15 seconds seems a bit too long. Know of any hardware that actually needs that long to settle in? (and don't you guys go dig up the most antiquated SCSI peripherals that actually do need 15 seconds ;) ) If yes, I'll just shut up about this. Cheers, Emiel -- The real pain for me is, with GENERIC (eg, installation kernel), you end up waiting that time even when you don't have SCSI, can't it detect that theres nothing but IDE ? It can nowadays, but could not in times past. (SCSI user since year ONE and SMD before that). Older on-device controllers said nothing to the host until they had all their ducks lined up, so if you did not wait, you would not know they were there w/o a re-scan. And you might be unable to do that re-scan if the host-bus controller had not seen devices and not grabbed a place at the table by loading its BIOS code at boot time. (CP/M-86 OS/2 anyway - FreeBSD was not yet a factor..) Newer on-device chips are *way* smarter, and will speak to the host 'instanter' with info about what they are (supposed to) have coming up, so the host-bus controller will load its BIOS and report sizes, etc. But nothing I still use regularly [1] needs even a 1 second delay - most of it is reporting-in from silicon before system-board BIOS POST is complete. Motor spin-up is no longer the determinant. Bill Hacker [1] Discounting a still working pair of 20 MB beta Bernoulli II, a pair of Syquest Puma 88, an NEC 2X 'MultiSpin' CD reader, and such. Which get switched almost as seldom as the S-100 gear. Makes one appreciate how much progress has been made. And shed fewer tears over what one has *spent* on it over a lifetime. :-(
Re: DP performance
On 12/3/05, Dennis Melentyev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Guys'n'girls, Just Google for Danial Thom. All I found are messages on *BSD forums/lists with the same proofless and abusing words. M.b. he know something about the subject, but definitely unable to talk about that. PS. I'm just about to mark him twit. Dennis Melentyev[snip] I wonder why it is that important 'who' Danial Thom is, or even whoMatthew Dillon is, in this kind of discussion. I thought that theory,reasoning and results were what mattered and that the rest was justdecorative fallacy, wich might be annoying when it's in the field ofpersonnal insult.A bunch of people make $$ with software for network hardware, but thebussiness environtment is very different from the open software one.That's why Windows XP Home isn't the safest/stablest operating systemin the martk, the target consumer is happy with it(open todiscussion :) ). Now back on thread, I see only reasoning by Matt, since generic Danialstatements don't seem to propose any approach, but then we are notpaying him $$.
Re: DP performance
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hiten Pandya wrote: [snip] Kind regards, May i second you Hiten. The DragonFly lists are particularly interesting and you always learn things here. Personnally i don't know anything on the subject of this thread and i have enjoyed observing and trying to understand the arguments. Let's hope people make an effort to be civil, for the benefit of everybody. I will add my grain of salt: [snip] Ditto for me. You pretty much wrote what I was thinking. I do not have the education or knowledge level but my main enjoyment in life is learning, however and when/where I can. I enjoy when people who know more than myself take the time in these discussions because I find the material interesting, in that I can learn from it. Just wanted to take a minute and express thanks and gratitude that such discussions are available for perusal, I enjoy them immensely. -Mike
