search for: 100x

Hi, I type a value, for example, "10,00". I see in the screen "10,00" but when print that value is multiplied by 100x resulting: "1000,00". What can I do? wine 0.9.55-1 Debian/Sid Thanks. -- S?vio M Ramos Arquiteto, Rio, RJ S? uso Linux desde 2000 www.debian.org

Dear Ivan, thanks for the confirmation and the proposed patch. I just wanted to add some notes regarding the relevance of this: base::merge using by.x=0 or by.y=0 (i.e. matching on row.names) will automatically add a column Row.names which is I(row.names(x)) to the corresponding input table (using I() since revision 39026 to avoid conversion of character to factor). When this column is used

Dear all, actually, it is not clear to me why there is still a protection of the added Row.names column in merge using I(). This seems to stem from a time when R would automatically convert character vectors to factor in data.frame on insert. However, I can't reproduce this behaviour even in data.frames generated with stringsAsFactors = T in current versions of R. Maybe the I() inserted in r

Good evening, I recently have observed slow merges when combining multiple data frames derived from DataFrame and base::data.frame. I observed that the index column of intermediate tables was of class <AsIs> (automatically converted from character). The problem occurred mainly when using the sorted = T option in base::merge. This can be traced to xtfrm.AsIs being more than 100 times slower

? Fri, 12 Jul 2024 17:35:19 +0200 Hilmar Berger via R-devel <r-devel at r-project.org> ?????: > This can be finally traced to base::rank() (called from > xtfrm.default), where I found that > > "NB: rank is not itself generic but xtfrm is, and rank(xtfrm(x), ....) > will have the desired result if there is a xtfrm method. Otherwise, > rank will make use of ==, >,

...ithub.com/google/neper) as test process. Napi increases single stream throughput, but increases cycle cost. The optimizations bring this down. The previous patchset saw a regression with UDP_STREAM, which does not benefit from cleaning tx interrupts in rx napi. This regression is now gone for 10x, 100x. Remaining difference is higher 1x TCP_STREAM, lower 1x UDP_STREAM. The latest results are with process, rx napi and tx napi affine to the same core. All numbers are lower than the previous patchset. upstream napi TCP_STREAM: 1x: Mbps 27816 39805 Gcycles...

...ithub.com/google/neper) as test process. Napi increases single stream throughput, but increases cycle cost. The optimizations bring this down. The previous patchset saw a regression with UDP_STREAM, which does not benefit from cleaning tx interrupts in rx napi. This regression is now gone for 10x, 100x. Remaining difference is higher 1x TCP_STREAM, lower 1x UDP_STREAM. The latest results are with process, rx napi and tx napi affine to the same core. All numbers are lower than the previous patchset. upstream napi TCP_STREAM: 1x: Mbps 27816 39805 Gcycles...

If your Perl apps are unusually slow on CentOS 5, have a look at this blog: http://blog.vipul.net/2008/08/24/redhat-perl-what-a-tragedy/ In a nutshell: some Perl apps are 100x slower on RedHat / CentOS 5 compared to other distributions. Bugzilla entry: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=379791 -- Florin Andrei http://florin.myip.org/

Is there a way to disable all SIP registration and block any requests? The reason I'm asking is this particular Asterisk server will just be originating calls. I've noticed sip attacks where the attacker attempts to register a user 100x per second causing CPU to rise significantly. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20110527/d93e809e/attachment.htm>

I''m installing Xen with the OpenSUSE 10.2 distro and the bigsmp-2.6.18.8-0.13.i586 kernel. However, I occasionally get insane amounts of slowdown (almost 100x) in dom0. On bootup, performance is normal. After an undeterministic period of time, I get this crazy amount of slowdown. I''m not sure why this is the case and I have spent a long time trying to figure it out. There are no background processes running and nothing CPU intensive show...

...ings (use warnings() to see the first 50) I am not understanding what is in SET_STRING_ELT which it is trying to throw an error. Please help me *Regards,* *Anshul Saravgi* Consulting m: 7757030307 <https://www.o9solutions.com/> AI powered solutions that predict, prescribe, learn and are 100x faster, smarter and easier to use -- This Electronic Mail (e-mail) contains confidential and privileged information intended only for the use of?the individual or entity to which it is sent. ?If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or?the employee or agent responsible for...

...blem with that combination.. samba work perfectly..but if someone want to write into homedir, they couldn't, and w2k workstation appear message , that disk is full.. disk isn't full, and permission are set correct I don't know, where should be a mistake, I check configuration problably 100x, but I haven't found any problem in it.. have you ever had someone similiar problem? thx a lot andrej -- >> jabber: ado@njs.netlab.cz << >> e-mail: ado@nirvanaclub.sk << ---------------------------------------- // just visit> http://www.nirvanaclub.s...

...Rs for I/O space. Or workarounds > for processor bugs. The only real user (other than this patch) is the > Intel microcode update driver. Memory serialization is sufficient in > all other cases on x86. One could imagine someone wanting to use it in a timing loop or something, and a 100x or 1000x slowdown might ruin their day. But it's not really all that important. I don't really see a good reason to not have a separate sync_core operation, but we can always add it later if needed. The bigger immediate issue is that we seem to be having an emerging tools compatibil...

...Mbps, 303 Gcyc >> 1,0,2: 42267 Mbps, 431 Gcyc >> >> These numbers were obtained with the virtqueue_enable_cb_delayed >> optimization after xmit_skb, btw. It turns out that moving that before >> increases 1x TCP_RR further to ~39 Gbps, at the cost of reducing >> 100x TCP_RR a bit. > > > I see, so I think we can leave the affinity hint optimization/check for > future investigation: > > - to avoid endless optimization (e.g we may want to share a single > vector/napi for tx/rx queue pairs in the future) for this series. > - tx napi is disab...

...Mbps, 303 Gcyc >> 1,0,2: 42267 Mbps, 431 Gcyc >> >> These numbers were obtained with the virtqueue_enable_cb_delayed >> optimization after xmit_skb, btw. It turns out that moving that before >> increases 1x TCP_RR further to ~39 Gbps, at the cost of reducing >> 100x TCP_RR a bit. > > > I see, so I think we can leave the affinity hint optimization/check for > future investigation: > > - to avoid endless optimization (e.g we may want to share a single > vector/napi for tx/rx queue pairs in the future) for this series. > - tx napi is disab...

...c 1,0,2: 40663 Mbps, 445 Gcyc napi tx: 1,1,1: 42420 Mbps, 303 Gcyc 1,0,2: 42267 Mbps, 431 Gcyc These numbers were obtained with the virtqueue_enable_cb_delayed optimization after xmit_skb, btw. It turns out that moving that before increases 1x TCP_RR further to ~39 Gbps, at the cost of reducing 100x TCP_RR a bit.

...c 1,0,2: 40663 Mbps, 445 Gcyc napi tx: 1,1,1: 42420 Mbps, 303 Gcyc 1,0,2: 42267 Mbps, 431 Gcyc These numbers were obtained with the virtqueue_enable_cb_delayed optimization after xmit_skb, btw. It turns out that moving that before increases 1x TCP_RR further to ~39 Gbps, at the cost of reducing 100x TCP_RR a bit.

...he optimization patch. That showed no significant difference with upstream. upstream napi +at-rx TCP_STREAM: 1x: Mbps 30537 37666 37910 Gcycles 400 540 405 10x: Mbps 41012 39954 40245 Gcycles 434 546 421 100x: Mbps 34088 34172 34245 Gcycles 435 546 418 TCP_RR Latency (us): 1x: p50 24 24 21 p99 27 27 27 Gcycles 299 432 308 10x: p50 31 31 41 p99 40...

...he optimization patch. That showed no significant difference with upstream. upstream napi +at-rx TCP_STREAM: 1x: Mbps 30537 37666 37910 Gcycles 400 540 405 10x: Mbps 41012 39954 40245 Gcycles 434 546 421 100x: Mbps 34088 34172 34245 Gcycles 435 546 418 TCP_RR Latency (us): 1x: p50 24 24 21 p99 27 27 27 Gcycles 299 432 308 10x: p50 31 31 41 p99 40...

Dear All, I just read an announcement saying that Mathematica is launching a version working with Nvidia GPUs. It is claimed that it'd make it ~10-100x faster! http://www.physorg.com/news146247669.html I was wondering if you are aware of any development going into this direction with R? Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Best wishes, Emmanuel