On 02/28/13 09:09, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:15:46 am matt wrote:
>> On 02/27/13 12:27, John Baldwin wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 1:35:43 pm matt wrote:
On 02/27/13 09:00, John Baldwin wrote:
> If that is true, it's because your BIOS is lying. Do
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 09:01:36AM -0700, Ian Lepore wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 21:27 -0800, Don Lewis wrote:
> > On 4 Mar, Ian Lepore wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2013-03-03 at 19:01 -0800, Don Lewis wrote:
> > >> On 3 Mar, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > For various reasons (see: Lemming-
On 01.02.2013 18:09, Alan Cox wrote:
On 02/01/2013 07:25, Andre Oppermann wrote:
Rebase auto-sizing of limits on the available KVM/kmem_map instead of
physical
memory. Depending on the kernel and architecture configuration these
two can
be very different.
Comments and reviews appreciated
Am 03/07/13 16:48, schrieb Gleb Smirnoff:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 01:31:19PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
> O> There is work going on to move the OpenBSD pf(1) towards a more SMP
> O> friendly entity - this reduces CPU load and should raise throughput.
> O>
> O> Are there any plans for FreeBSD "nat
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 01:31:19PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
O> There is work going on to move the OpenBSD pf(1) towards a more SMP
O> friendly entity - this reduces CPU load and should raise throughput.
O>
O> Are there any plans for FreeBSD "native" packet filter IPFW2 to gain the
O> same? Or, to
There is work going on to move the OpenBSD pf(1) towards a more SMP
friendly entity - this reduces CPU load and should raise throughput.
Are there any plans for FreeBSD "native" packet filter IPFW2 to gain the
same? Or, to ask it differently, IS ipfw(1), the freeBSD native
packetfilter, already SM
