search for: 46mb

Hi, I''m running SunOS Release 5.10 Version Generic_118855-36 64-bit and in [b]/etc/system[/b] I put: [b]set zfs:zfs_nocacheflush = 1[/b] And after rebooting, I get the message: [b]sorry, variable ''zfs_nocacheflush'' is not defined in the ''zfs'' module[/b] So is this variable not available in the Solaris kernel? I''m getting really poor

On 02/12/2019 15:21, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > yaml-bench is shipping in libclang-common-9-dev Ok possible. Though, it adds an unnecessary 46MB to my docker image. > It should be indeed in llvm-9-dev instead. This would hide the problem, right. I am not sure it's is a good solution. Where can we review the build process for the apt packages? On 02/12/2019 15:21, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > Hello, > > Le 02/12/2019 à 15:14,...

..., I copy the data from a Windows 10 VM to a share connected on the smb server (which results in writing the data on the NFS file servers). The time it takes to copy this directory is as follows: Copy testdir 70MB with 5500 single files via smb: 300 sec (5min) Copy zip archive of testdir (1 file, 46MB) via smb: ~2 sec Copy this directory on smb server via NFS, cp -ar: 90 sec Copy test dir via smb to local fs on smb server: 90 sec I tried a lot to make the copy process of many small files faster and finally came across the case sensitive option of samba: Copy testdir 70MB with 5500 singl...

...Windows 10 VM to a share connected on the smb server (which results in > writing the data on the NFS file servers). The time it takes to copy > this directory is as follows: > > Copy testdir 70MB with 5500 single files via smb: 300 sec (5min) > Copy zip archive of testdir (1 file, 46MB) via smb: ~2 sec > Copy this directory on smb server via NFS, cp -ar: 90 sec > Copy test dir via smb to local fs on smb server: 90 sec > > I tried a lot to make the copy process of many small files faster and > finally came across the case sensitive option of samba: > &gt...

...1 6 MB Since this is on the master smbd then it?ll be inherited by the ones it forks off too. On a busy server (1317 smbd processes currently) the master smbd uses 138MB allocated: 4096 8915 36MB 8192 1 12288 1 106496 2 671744 1 2093056 24 50MB 2097152 22 46MB 4194304 1 4MB And one one of the user smbd processes - also 138MB allocated: 4096 8924 36MB 8192 1 12288 1 106496 2 671744 1 2093056 24 50MB 2097152 22 46MB 4194304 1 If one could reduce the memory usage by say 10MB per process then that would transla...

Hello everyone I was just porting a project to build against the LLVM 9 apt packages and noticed that the issue I filed and explained during the release phase in https://llvm.org/PR43035 still persists: CMake Error at /usr/lib/llvm-9/lib/cmake/llvm/LLVMExports.cmake:1323 (message):   The imported target "yaml-bench" references the file      "/usr/lib/llvm-9/bin/yaml-bench"

...enchmarks/Olden/tsp/tsp 0.680 0.748 +9.9% +41mB SingleSource/Benchmarks/Shootout-C++/except 0.116 0.128 +10.8% +45mB SingleSource/Benchmarks/Shootout/strcat 0.102 0.113 +11.1% +46mB SingleSource/Benchmarks/Shootout-C++/hash 0.455 0.507 +11.4% +47mB External/Povray/povray 2.015 2.246 +11.5% +47mB External/SPEC/CINT2000/255_vortex/255_vortex 1.814 2....

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk>wrote: > I am not sure how best to fix this. If possible, InstCombine's > canonicalization shouldn't hide arithmetic progressions behind bit masks. The entire concept of cleverly converting arithmetic to bit masks seems like the perfect domain for DAGCombine instead of InstCombine: 1) We know the

For several days, I try to run an Windows- Application on an Ubuntu 7.04 System through wine 0.9.58. In detail, it's a tool for supporting a change of food and sports behavior. The tool is freeware, named "Di?t- Tagebuch" (diet diary or diet day book) and downloadable at: http://www.diet-daybook.de/DTBInstall2.exe (unfortunately it's only in german) The DTBInstall2.exe is an

...r- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks--- mirror MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU /sec %CPU 8 disk 8196 33285 38.6 46033 9.9 33077 6.8 67934 90.4 93445 7.7 230.5 1.3 8 disk 8196 34821 41.4 46136 9.0 32445 6.6 67120 89.1 94403 6.9 210.4 1.8 46MB/sec writes, each disk individually can do better, but I guess keeping 8 disks in sync is hurting performance. The 94MB/sec writes is interesting. One the one hand, that''s greater then 1 disk''s worth, so I''m getting striping performance out of a mirror GO ZFS. On the other...

Look at this silly function: $ cat small.c unsigned f(unsigned a, unsigned *p) { unsigned x = a/4; p[0] = x; p[1] = x+x; return p[1] - 2*p[0]; } GCC turns this into straightforward code and figures out the 0 return value: shrl $2, %edi movl %edi, (%rsi) addl %edi, %edi movl %edi, 4(%rsi) movl $0, %eax ret LLVM optimizes the code: $ clang -O -S -o- small.c -emit-llvm define i32

I was trying to simply test bandwidth that Solaris/ZFS (Nevada b63) can deliver from a drive, and doing this: dd if=(raw disk) of=/dev/null gives me around 80MB/s, while dd if=(file on ZFS) of=/dev/null gives me only 35MB/s!?. I am getting basically the same result whether it is single zfs drive, mirror or a stripe (I am testing with two Seagate 7200.10 320G drives hanging off the same interface

So I have this dual 16-core Opteron Dell R715 with 128G of RAM attached to a SuperMicro disk enclosure with 45 2TB Toshiba SAS drives (via two LSI 9200 controllers and MPxIO) running OpenIndiana 151a4 and I''m occasionally seeing a storm of xcalls on one of the 32 VCPUs (>100000 xcalls a second). The machine is pretty much idle, only receiving a bunch of multicast video streams and

...l 1000 of files at a rate of about 115MB/s. Then nginx served files to 50 clients. Each client now downloaded 100 4MB files + 100 small files which held the md5sums of each other file for validating files. On average each client took about 7.25minutes and on the web server I've only seen ~ 46MB/s throughput. (2) same two server now each exporting each disk on its own, i.e. gluster volume create test-volume replica 2 transport tcp $(for i in b c d e f g h i j k l m ; do for n in 1 2; do echo -n "gluster0$n:/data-$i "; done; done) As expected, the overhead here is larger. ini...

Sorry, I wasn't aware of that. I can make the google doc view-only, keeping the current comments. I'll wait a bit (few hrs) to see if there's any pushback to that. On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 9:57 AM Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> wrote: > One suggestion : should we consolidate the discussion into the main > thread? I know some folks are not willing to comment in