search for: 490m

I appear to be seeing the performance of a local ZFS file system degrading over a short period of time. My system configuration: 32 bit Athlon 1800+ CPU 1 Gbyte of RAM Solaris 10 U6 SunOS filer 5.10 Generic_137138-09 i86pc i386 i86pc 2x250 GByte Western Digital WD2500JB IDE hard drives 1 zfs pool (striped with the two drives, 449 GBytes total) 1 hard drive has

...rather high CPU usage with 2.2 now: last pid: 30725; load averages: 4.58, 27.36, 25.49 up 0+15:36:12 16:02:53 103 processes: 4 running, 98 sleeping, 1 zombie CPU: 34.5% user, 0.0% nice, 65.4% system, 0.2% interrupt, 0.0% idle Mem: 602M Active, 1767M Inact, 254M Wired, 6116K Cache, 112M Buf, 490M Free Swap: 5900M Total, 5900M Free PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND 30569 mailnull 1 112 0 4956K 2784K RUN 0 1:27 68.65% pop3 30704 mailnull 1 108 0 4956K 2876K CPU0 0 0:10 57.37% pop3 30712 mailnull 1 106...

...for the review, and Renato for the suggestion of looking > into SLEB. Attached is an updated patch which toggles the change at the > module level (done with option a), and uses signed VRBs for phis, This is awesome! I tried it by creating a .ll of all of clang. Some sizes: * clang.ll 490M * clang.ll.gz 55M * clang.ll.bz2 37M * clang.ll.xz 27M with the current bitcode: * clang.bc 82M * clang.bc.xz 27M with the new bitcode: * clang.bc 70M * clang.bc.xz 26M it looks like a nop run of opt also got a bit faster, from 10.451s to 10.176s. +static void EmitSignedInt64(SmallVe...

On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Sep 25, 2012, at 5:08 PM, Jan Voung <jvoung at chromium.org> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I've been looking into how to make llvm bitcode files smaller. There is > one simple change that appears to shrink linked bitcode files by about 15%. > See this spreadsheet for some rough

Currently I''m trying to figure out the best zfs layout for a thumper wrt. to read AND write performance. I did some simple mkfile 512G tests and found out, that per average ~ 500 MB/s seems to be the maximum on can reach (tried initial default setup, all 46 HDDs as R0, etc.). According to http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/ArchitectureWP_062806.pdf I would

...992K pte [ 0.034881] 0x00000000e00f8000-0x00000000e00f9000 4K RW PCD GLB x pte [ 0.034885] 0x00000000e00f9000-0x00000000e0200000 1052K pte [ 0.034888] 0x00000000e0200000-0x00000000fec00000 490M pmd [ 0.034890] 0x00000000fec00000-0x00000000fed1c000 1136K pte [ 0.034891] 0x00000000fed1c000-0x00000000fed20000 16K RW PCD GLB x pte [ 0.034895] 0x00000000fed20000-0x00000000fee00000 896K...