search for: 0pf

...the Debug+Asserts mode. For replicating it on cmake, run > > mkdir build-directory&& cd build-directory > cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug path/to/llvm/source/root > time make -j32 > > Thanks again. Autoconf + GMake: 16: 1681.512u 189.706s 2:48.96 1107.4% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w 32: 1698.817u 209.073s 2:02.88 1552.6% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w CMake: 32: 1700.340u 222.174s 1:38.27 1956.3% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w -- John T.

...a new 32 core machine, so I ran some numbers. These results are for compiling all of LLVM and Clang in a Debug build from scratch. The first number is the -j argument to make, and the rest is the result of the bash builtin time command. 2: 1612.950u 161.293s 15:04.92 196.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w 4: 1624.101u 164.121s 8:00.74 371.9% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w 8: 1657.272u 176.211s 4:35.31 665.9% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w 16: 1681.512u 189.706s 2:48.96 1107.4% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w 32: 1698.817u 209.073s 2:02.88 1552.6% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w The processors are Intel(R) Xeon(R) CP...

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105 markus at openbsd.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From markus at openbsd.org 2002-02-07 06:54 ------- could you please try this without scp? e.g.

Am 01.11.2011 18:04, schrieb Joerg Sonnenberger: > On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 11:09:41AM +0100, Joachim Durchholz wrote: >> On the reasons why make-based builds are slow, Peter Miller has some >> insight to offer: >> http://miller.emu.id.au/pmiller/books/rmch/ . >> I'm not sure how widely recognized that paper is. Maybe it's widely >> known and today's

Hello John. John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu> writes: [snip] > I did not use CMake but the standard autoconf + Makefile build. > > Not sure if this helps, but here it is, for what it's worth. Very interesting, thanks! CMake introduces more parallelism and it would be great to see how much impact it makes. If you can, please run the cmake build with -j32, just to

...is slower, but as I increase the input value, fib381 gets slower and slower in run-time performance (almost 200X for an input value of 40). Any hints on what could be going wrong? TIA. % time fib34 30 ... starting fibonacci(30) with JIT... Result: 832040 0.008u 0.000s 0:00.01 0.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w % time fib34 40 ... starting fibonacci(40) with JIT... Result: 102334155 0.427u 0.003s 0:00.44 95.4% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w % time fib381 30 ... starting fibonacci(30) with JIT... Result: 832040 0.795u 0.001s 0:00.81 97.5% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w % time fib381 40 ... starting fibonacci(40) with J...

...tripped out all the lines beginning in '#' and multiple empty lines. It's about 75k lines of code. On a Mac Pro, the unix 'time' command says it's using 249 seconds of user time. Wall time on my machine somewhere around 5 minutes? 249.035u 1.883s 4:12.44 99.3% 0+0k 0+2io 0pf+0w CLang version: clang version 3.1 (trunk 146659) Target: x86_64-apple-darwin10.8.0 Thread model: posix I built this CLang myself from the svn source a few weeks back -- I compiled it with gcc, and then re-compiled it with itself. This is just one example. GCC compiles all of ITK and VTK in ar...

...#39;#' and multiple > empty lines. > > It's about 75k lines of code. > > On a Mac Pro, the unix 'time' command says it's using 249 seconds of > user time. Wall time on my machine somewhere around 5 minutes? > > 249.035u 1.883s 4:12.44 99.3% 0+0k 0+2io 0pf+0w > > CLang version: > > clang version 3.1 (trunk 146659) > Target: x86_64-apple-darwin10.8.0 > Thread model: posix > > I built this CLang myself from the svn source a few weeks back -- I > compiled it with gcc, and then re-compiled it with itself. > > This is...

...ce of code.?? Something's wrong on your machine or something. I did the same (but using llvm-gcc for the .ll files). Using a debug build of current ToT I got this: [ghostwheel:~/Desktop] echristo% time ~/builds/build-llvm-64bit/Debug/bin/lli foo.bc.bc 0.210u 0.010s 0:00.22 100.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w That's a 64-bit build, but you'll notice the time difference. That said I'm guessing that there's something missing since it takes no time to execute. Step by step directions on what you did might help. -eric

...ng the other DC. I have set up freesbsd 11 in a vm and installed samba44 just like I would on devuan and I get this: root at freebsd:~ # net cache flush root at freebsd:~ # time getent passwd rowland rowland:*:10000:10000:Rowland Penny:/home/rowland:/bin/bash 0.000u 0.005s 0:00.01 0.0% 0+0k 5+0io 0pf+0w root at freebsd:~ # time getent passwd rowland rowland:*:10000:10000:Rowland Penny:/home/rowland:/bin/bash 0.000u 0.001s 0:00.00 0.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w So if all else fails, you could try upgrading ;-) At least then we could compare like for like. Rowland

is there any way to prevent this timeou ? i tried --configtimeout=600 --filetimeout=600 but this does not changes anything -- Cordialement, Ghislain _______________________________________________ Puppet-users mailing list Puppet-users@madstop.com https://mail.madstop.com/mailman/listinfo/puppet-users

...sion is turned on, but our random data defeats it. $ btrfs subvolume create src $ time dd if=/dev/urandom of=src/10gb bs=4k count=2621440 conv=notrunc 2621440+0 records in 2621440+0 records out 10737418240 bytes (11 GB) copied, 811.427 s, 13.2 MB/s 0.400u 806.115s 13:31.42 99.3% 0+0k 0+20971520io 0pf+0w $ df -h . Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/mapper/jobarchive-Ajobarchivetest2 300G 11G 283G 4% /vol/jobarchive_Ajobarchivetest2 ## 3) Create a second subvolume called current. Copy the first file into it. $ btrfs subvolume create current $...

...n ascii image save.image(file='test', ascii=TRUE) # At the shell prompt: ls -l test -rw-rw-r--. 1 swmorris swmorris 1794473126 Jan 14 17:33 test time bzip2 -9 test 364.702u 3.148s 6:14.01 98.3% 0+0k 48+1273976io 1pf+0w time pbzip2 -9 test 422.080u 18.708s 0:11.49 3836.2% 0+0k 0+1274176io 0pf+0w ============ As you can see, bzip2 on its own took over 6 minutes whereas pbzip2 took 11 seconds, admittedly on a 64 core machine (running at 50% load). Most modern machines are multicore so everyone would get some speedup. Is this feasible/practical? I am not a developer so I'm afraid t...

...gt; empty lines. >> >> It's about 75k lines of code. >> >> On a Mac Pro, the unix 'time' command says it's using 249 seconds of >> user time. Wall time on my machine somewhere around 5 minutes? >> >> 249.035u 1.883s 4:12.44 99.3% 0+0k 0+2io 0pf+0w >> >> CLang version: >> >> clang version 3.1 (trunk 146659) >> Target: x86_64-apple-darwin10.8.0 >> Thread model: posix >> >> I built this CLang myself from the svn source a few weeks back -- I >> compiled it with gcc, and then re-compiled it...

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Rowland Penny via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: >> /etc/resolv.conf: >> root at nickel:~ # cat /etc/resolv.conf >> nameserver 192.168.11.5 >> nameserver 192.168.1.4 >> domain mydomain.local >> > > I take it at least one of the above nameservers is the AD DC, is the > other another AD DC ? If it isn't,

...on your machine or something. I did the same (but > using llvm-gcc for the .ll files). Using a debug build of current > ToT I got this: > > [ghostwheel:~/Desktop] echristo% time ~/builds/build-llvm-64bit/ > Debug/bin/lli foo.bc.bc > 0.210u 0.010s 0:00.22 100.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w > > > That's a 64-bit build, but you'll notice the time difference. That > said I'm guessing that there's something missing since it takes no > time to execute. Step by step directions on what you did might help. > > -eric > ___________________________...

...h 4Gb of RAM ... Starting commands seems to take a long time ... top takes forever, and pstat -s shows: neptune# time pstat -s Device 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Type /dev/aacd0s1b 8388480 119916 8268564 1% Interleaved 0.245u 3.670s 0:27.39 14.2% 16+218k 0+0io 0pf+0w And not much swap is being used for the # of processes .. What else should I be looking at? :(

...I did the same (but using >>> llvm-gcc for the .ll files). Using a debug build of current ToT I got this: >>> >>> [ghostwheel:~/Desktop] echristo% time >>> ~/builds/build-llvm-64bit/Debug/bin/lli foo.bc.bc >>> 0.210u 0.010s 0:00.22 100.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w >>> >>> >>> That's a 64-bit build, but you'll notice the time difference. That said >>> I'm guessing that there's something missing since it takes no time to >>> execute. Step by step directions on what you did might help. >>>...

...achine or something. I did the same (but using >> llvm-gcc for the .ll files). Using a debug build of current ToT I got this: >> >> [ghostwheel:~/Desktop] echristo% time >> ~/builds/build-llvm-64bit/Debug/bin/lli foo.bc.bc >> 0.210u 0.010s 0:00.22 100.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w >> >> >> That's a 64-bit build, but you'll notice the time difference. That said >> I'm guessing that there's something missing since it takes no time to >> execute. Step by step directions on what you did might help. >> >> -eric >>...

[Moved from -current to -stable] ???????? 21 ???????? 2006 16:23, Matthew Dillon ?? ????????: > ? ? You might be doing just writes to the mmap()'d memory, but the system > ? ? doesn't know that. Actually, it does. The program tells it, that I don't care to read, what's currently there, by specifying the PROT_READ flag only. > ? ? The moment you touch any mmap()'d