search for: 32.53

Displaying 11 results from an estimated 11 matches for "32.53".

Did you mean: 32.3
2009 Feb 17
1
Processing a list of fit objects
Hi, I have a list of fit objects (fit objects from HMISC functions) I create elements in the list in this way lrm.sumtot <- lrm( ae7bepn ~ trarm + sumtot , data=sd.fix) lrm.list[['lrm.sumtot']] <- lrm.sumtot And I can run (anova(lrm.sumtot)) The following also gives the anova I'd expect zz <- lrm.list[['lrm.sumtot']];anova(zz) And similarly for the summary
2012 Dec 09
3
[LLVMdev] pb05 benchmarks for llvm/dragonegg 3.2
Duncan, With the commit from http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121203/158488.html, the Polyhedron 2005 benchmarks complete again on x86_64-apple-darwin12. The result are similar to what were seen with FSF gcc 4.6.2svn and llvm/dragonegg 3.0 (which was the last release that passed pb05) http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2011-October/044091.html. Jack
2010 Mar 10
3
Logrotate/cron and major I/O contention with KVM.
Is anyone else having major I/O peaks due to logrotate or other jobs running simultaneously across multiple guests. I have one KVM server running Centos 5.4 with local disk that is seriously suffering as most of the guests rotate their syslog at the same time. Looking at the KVM server I'm seeing 11:00:01 PM CPU %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 03:40:01 AM
2012 Dec 10
0
[LLVMdev] pb05 benchmarks for llvm/dragonegg 3.2
Hi Jack, thanks for these numbers. > With the commit from http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121203/158488.html, > the Polyhedron 2005 benchmarks complete again on x86_64-apple-darwin12. The result are similar to what > were seen with FSF gcc 4.6.2svn and llvm/dragonegg 3.0 (which was the last release that passed pb05) >
2011 Oct 29
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
On Sat, 2011-10-29 at 15:16 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote: > On Sat, 2011-10-29 at 14:02 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote: > > On Sat, 2011-10-29 at 12:30 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote: > > > Ralf, et al., > > > > > > Attached is the latest version of my autovectorization patch. llvmdev > > > has been CC'd (as had been suggested to me); this e-mail contains > >
2011 Oct 29
4
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
On Sat, 2011-10-29 at 14:02 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote: > On Sat, 2011-10-29 at 12:30 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote: > > Ralf, et al., > > > > Attached is the latest version of my autovectorization patch. llvmdev > > has been CC'd (as had been suggested to me); this e-mail contains > > additional benchmark results. > > > > First, these are preliminary
2011 Oct 29
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
On Sat, 2011-10-29 at 12:30 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote: > Ralf, et al., > > Attached is the latest version of my autovectorization patch. llvmdev > has been CC'd (as had been suggested to me); this e-mail contains > additional benchmark results. > > First, these are preliminary results because I did not do the things > necessary to make them real (explicitly quiet the
2011 Oct 29
4
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
Ralf, et al., Attached is the latest version of my autovectorization patch. llvmdev has been CC'd (as had been suggested to me); this e-mail contains additional benchmark results. First, these are preliminary results because I did not do the things necessary to make them real (explicitly quiet the machine, bind the processes to one cpu, etc.). But they should be good enough for discussion.
2011 May 24
0
ProgeCAD Layer drop down menu opening up off screen
rucker222 wrote: > The drop down layer selection menu at the top left of the screen directly above where the drawing 1 tab is opens upwards off of the screen once the drawing has a few layers on it. jjmckenzie wrote: > Log file please. I loaded a drawing with plenty of layers and then clicked on the layer drop down menu a couple of times before exiting ProgeCAD. Log file below. (sorry
2011 Aug 12
11
[net-next RFC PATCH 0/7] multiqueue support for tun/tap
As multi-queue nics were commonly used for high-end servers, current single queue based tap can not satisfy the requirement of scaling guest network performance as the numbers of vcpus increase. So the following series implements multiple queue support in tun/tap. In order to take advantages of this, a multi-queue capable driver and qemu were also needed. I just rebase the latest version of
2011 Aug 12
11
[net-next RFC PATCH 0/7] multiqueue support for tun/tap
As multi-queue nics were commonly used for high-end servers, current single queue based tap can not satisfy the requirement of scaling guest network performance as the numbers of vcpus increase. So the following series implements multiple queue support in tun/tap. In order to take advantages of this, a multi-queue capable driver and qemu were also needed. I just rebase the latest version of