On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> On 29-Oct-2002 clark shishido wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:40:53AM -0700, Raymond Kohler wrote:
> >> 1) How is the speed compared to stable? I remember it being just too slow some
>months ago and
> >> was wondering how it was improving.
> >>
>
On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, at 11:43 AM, Doug Rabson wrote:
I compiled kde3 a week or so ago on my laptop running -current and it
is
now my new desktop, so I think reports of kde being totally hosed are
a
bit exagerated or perhaps dated.
Hmm. I compiled it a few days ago and it was qui
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> On 29-Oct-2002 clark shishido wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:40:53AM -0700, Raymond Kohler wrote:
> >> 1) How is the speed compared to stable? I remember it being just too slow some
>months ago and
> >> was wondering how it was improving.
> >>
>
On (2002/10/29 13:06), Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :Most of the speed difference is WITNESS, INVARIANTS, and other
> :debugging code that's turned on by default in the config files
> :for -current. You can turn most of it off. That said, -current
> :is slower than -stable in a number of places, so e
Matthew Dillon wrote:
> Interrupt threads have 'grown' on me. I like them.
> But I come from an embedded world where switching threads
> costs no more then a procedure call. The way I figure it,
> we will eventually be able to make -current's scheduler
> efficient enough such
:I agree that "it's to be expected", but the "it doesn't matter"
:argument is pretty lame. It matters. Coming to FreeBSD the
:first time, I would definitely make a decision for 4.7 vs. 5.x
:if performance were an issue for me. I still have not seen a
:reasonable justification for interrupt thre
Matthew Dillon wrote:
> That said, it should be noted that nearly all the
> really cool development projects are only happening in -current.
Not by choice... 8-) 8-).
> And, of course, there is the fact that computing power seems to
> double every year. Since -current's overhead
:Most of the speed difference is WITNESS, INVARIANTS, and other
:debugging code that's turned on by default in the config files
:for -current. You can turn most of it off. That said, -current
:is slower than -stable in a number of places, so expect some
:slowdown, if you are running non-concurre
Raymond Kohler wrote:
> I'm now a stable user, and I'm considering moving to current to get a jump
> on upgrading and help with the testing effort. I have some questions about
> its performance:
>
> 1) How is the speed compared to stable? I remember it being just too slow
> some months ago and was
On 2002-10-29 11:40 +, Raymond Kohler wrote:
> I'm now a stable user, and I'm considering moving to current to get a jump on
>upgrading and help with the testing effort. I have some questions about its
>performance:
>
> 1) How is the speed compared to stable? I remember it being just too slo
Raymond Kohler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 3) Are there any Very Important Packages (mozilla, kde, &c) that
> won't build or refuse to work right?
I've been compiling mozilla/phoenix for months now, out of CVS,
and it was only broken twice, and for no more than a couple of days.
--
Eric Hodel
At 11:40 AM -0700 10/29/02, Raymond Kohler wrote:
I'm now a stable user, and I'm considering moving to current to
get a jump on upgrading and help with the testing effort.
Note that -current is a much wilder place than -stable.
I have some questions about its performance:
1) How is the speed
On 29-Oct-2002 clark shishido wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:40:53AM -0700, Raymond Kohler wrote:
>> 1) How is the speed compared to stable? I remember it being just too slow some
>months ago and
>> was wondering how it was improving.
>>
>> 2) Are the random hangs in X fixed yet? I can put
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:40:53AM -0700, Raymond Kohler wrote:
> 1) How is the speed compared to stable? I remember it being just too slow some
>months ago and was wondering how it was improving.
>
> 2) Are the random hangs in X fixed yet? I can put up with a few issues (it is
>current, after a
14 matches
Mail list logo
