On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 05:29:36PM -0500, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014, at 03:05 PM, Miod Vallat wrote:
>[responding to Brandon Mercer who wrote:]
> > > The other day I was doing an install in qemu-kvm and newfs was taking
> > > forever, to the tune of hours. This is similar to
> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 23:42:26 +0200
> From: Claudio Jeker
>
> Found this in my X240, the following diff makes it work.
>
> rtsx0 at pci1 dev 0 function 0 "Realtek RTS5227 Card Reader" rev 0x01: msi
> sdmmc0 at rtsx0
> scsibus4 at sdmmc0: 2 targets, initiator 0
> sd1 at scsibus4 targ 1 lun 0:
Found this in my X240, the following diff makes it work.
rtsx0 at pci1 dev 0 function 0 "Realtek RTS5227 Card Reader" rev 0x01: msi
sdmmc0 at rtsx0
scsibus4 at sdmmc0: 2 targets, initiator 0
sd1 at scsibus4 targ 1 lun 0: SCSI2 0/direct fixed
sd1: 15296MB, 512 bytes/sector, 31326208 sectors
A bit
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 08:15:27PM -0600, Bob Beck wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Reyk Floeter wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I did some testing with apache bench (ab) and it shows a negative
> > performance impact when running with multiple preforked relays and
> > concurrent requests. But this
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:22:44PM -0500, Adam Thompson wrote:
> Given the single-threaded nature of much of the kernel, what applications do
> you run where multiple CPUs makes much of a difference to OpenBSD?
>
You're a narrow-minded troll.
* Adam Thompson [2014-04-17 19:31]:
> I've found that having multiple cores available can speed up a desktop, and
> certain classes of cpu-bound server applications, and not much else.
MP speeds up all userland-heavy tasks a lot.
MP doesn't yet speed up kernel-heavy tasks as much as it should.
Em 17-04-2014 14:30, Adam Thompson escreveu:
> Yes, but the very nature of the discussion concerns VMs, where the
> point is to multiplex the physical CPUs into multiple VMs in
> user-controllable chunks. A VM with one vCPU is perfectly reasonable
> and normal.
>
> I've found that having multiple c
Please take this discussion elsewhere. This email is about being able
to boot off ffs2 not your ability to run vm's.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Adam Thompson wrote:
> Yes, but the very nature of the discussion concerns VMs, where the point is
> to multiplex the physical CPUs into multiple V
Yes, but the very nature of the discussion concerns VMs, where the point is to
multiplex the physical CPUs into multiple VMs in user-controllable chunks. A
VM with one vCPU is perfectly reasonable and normal.
I've found that having multiple cores available can speed up a desktop, and
certain c
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:22:44PM -0500, Adam Thompson wrote:
> Given the single-threaded nature of much of the kernel, what applications do
> you run where multiple CPUs makes much of a difference to OpenBSD?
Come on, a machine runs multiple processes...
>
> Also, switching from IDE to any
Given the single-threaded nature of much of the kernel, what applications do
you run where multiple CPUs makes much of a difference to OpenBSD?
Also, switching from IDE to any of the supported SCSI, SAS or SATA disk types
also produces a noticeable improvement. I'm not sure if those are availab
Em 17-04-2014 07:34, Abel Abraham Camarillo Ojeda escreveu:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Brandon Mercer
> wrote:
>> It will take me about that long to newfs the 10 kvm's I plan on using ;)
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 5:09 AM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:16:00PM -07
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 04:00, Jean-Philippe Ouellet wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here's more fuel for the OpenSSL fire. Mostly just axeing at ifdefs,
> trying to err on the conservitive side.
I deleted most (all?) of this yesterday. Your cvs mirrors are quite
likely to lag behind development for a while.
A 3rd check against a self compiled kernel based on the latest anoncvs tree
without any patches shows the same behaviour as described below.
# i=219
# while [ $i -le 226 ];do
> ping -f -n -c100 -s$i 192.168.7.1
> i=$(( $i + 1 ))
> done
PING 192.168.7.1 (192.168.7.1): 219 data bytes
--- 192.168.7.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Brandon Mercer
wrote:
> It will take me about that long to newfs the 10 kvm's I plan on using ;)
>
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 5:09 AM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:16:00PM -0700, Philip Guenther wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, April 17, 2014, Otto
It will take me about that long to newfs the 10 kvm's I plan on using ;)
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 5:09 AM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:16:00PM -0700, Philip Guenther wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, April 17, 2014, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> > But bear in mind that ffs2 has m
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:16:00PM -0700, Philip Guenther wrote:
> On Thursday, April 17, 2014, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> ...
>
> > But bear in mind that ffs2 has more overhead in terms of metadata.
> > IMO, making it the default is not a good idea.
> >
>
> You have fewer than 24 years left to enj
Hi,
Here's more fuel for the OpenSSL fire. Mostly just axeing at ifdefs,
trying to err on the conservitive side.
There's obviously *TONS* more to clean up, but I only had so much time
tonight. :)
BTW, libssl and libcrypto don't currently build because their Makefiles
still include some recently
18 matches
Mail list logo
