On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Louis A. Mamakos wrote:
> And my mine... I get zero COW optimized faults.
THE E-MAIL EXPLICITLY SAID ONLY TO POST IF YOU HAVE MORE THEN 0 FAULTS
I hope one day the people who don't read this list carefully miss something
really important and it eats your system as a result.
And my mine... I get zero COW optimized faults.
louie@whizzo[20] $ vmstat -s
47312081 cpu context switches
89421468 device interrupts
30438305 software interrupts
16214761 traps
244593116 system calls
1546 swap pager pageins
5124 swap pager pages paged in
4185 swap pager pageo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I get high numbers too:
> >
> > FreeBSD mailtoaster1.pipeline.ch 3.2-STABLE FreeBSD 3.2-STABLE #3: Sun
> > Jun 13 20:31:43 CEST 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys
> > /compile/mailtoaster1 i386
>
> Read the original message. It says:
>
> > > I would apprecia
> I get high numbers too:
>
> FreeBSD mailtoaster1.pipeline.ch 3.2-STABLE FreeBSD 3.2-STABLE #3: Sun
> Jun 13 20:31:43 CEST 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys
> /compile/mailtoaster1 i386
Read the original message. It says:
> > I would appreciate it if people running -current would run a
Leif Neland wrote:
>
> > I would appreciate it if people running -current would run a "vmstat -s"
> > and tell me if they see a NON-ZERO value for copy-on-write optimized
> > faults. About six months ago, I implemented a simpler and more general
> > optimization at an earlier "fork in the road".
> > 2062637 copy-on-write optimized faults <
> [cut]
>
> > I must have something configured wrong, or???
>
> No, but you didn't read Allan's original posting, the change only applied to
> -CURRENT, your box is running -STABLE ...
>
OKOKOKOK! Don't nag me anymore. I forgot, I run current at
> I would appreciate it if people running -current would run a "vmstat -s"
> and tell me if they see a NON-ZERO value for copy-on-write optimized
> faults. About six months ago, I implemented a simpler and more general
> optimization at an earlier "fork in the road". (In effect, I avoid
> the
