search for: flopping

Hi all, Since proc.time return three different kind of times (user, system and elapsed) , I am wondering which one is right for calculating flops. In New S Language (Becker et. al. ) , it seems to be the user because " the user time measures the processor time used in S and the system time measures the operating system in response to S's request". But in R Help , system time

After looking through the archives I haven''t been able to assess the reliability of a backup procedure which employs zfs send and recv. Currently I''m attempting to create a script that will allow me to write a zfs stream to a tape via tar like below. # zfs send -R pool at something | tar -c > /dev/tape I''m primarily concerned with in the possibility

Jean-Marc, I'm an embedded systems designer and am in the process of selecting a hardware platform to run a Linux-Speex VoIP application. Being concerned with size and power consumption I must choose a processor with a minimal amount of computational power. To that end I've narrowed my search to number of different products that reference the popular "SiSoft Sandra(TM)"

...UDP address of tinc_test_1 set to 10.240.0.4 port 655 > UDP address of tinc_test_1 set to 104.154.59.151 port 655 > UDP address of tinc_test_1 set to 10.240.0.4 port 655 > repeatedly for a minute or so before finally settling on 10.240.0.4. > > Is there a reason it's flip flopping? Is that expected? Am I doing > something wrong? No, you are not doing anything wrong. Although I've not seen this kind of flip-flopping behavior myself, it is possible this behaviour occurs, although it should only happen in the first 10 seconds or so. When LocalDiscovery is enabled, tinc...

Hi, LLVM’s SLP-vectorizer is a new pass that combines similar independent instructions in a straight-line code. It is currently not enabled by default, and people who want to experiment with it can use the clang command line flag “-fslp-vectorize”. I ran LLVM’s test suite with and without the SLP vectorizer on a Sandybridge mac (using SSE4, w/o AVX). Based on my performance measurements

On Sun, January 11, 2015 7:29 pm, Keith Keller wrote: > On 2015-01-12, Valeri Galtsev <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu> wrote: >> >> PS I guess I just mention it. I'm quite happy about CentOS (or RedHat if >> I >> look back). One day I realized how happy I am that I chose RedHat way >> back, - that was when all Debian (and its clones like Ubuntu,...) admins

...0.0.4 port 655 options 700000c weight 1 tinc_test_2 to tinc_test_1 at 104.154.59.151 port 655 local 10.240.0.5 port 655 options 700000c weight 1 I brought down tinc_test_2 and brought it back up and the output from "tinc dump edges" didn't seem to be any different while it was flip flopping. > On 14 February 2017 at 16:21, James Hartig <james at levenlabs.com> wrote: >> >> We are testing tinc inside Google Compute within a single region and an external region. Two boxes are created as follows: >> /etc/tinc/test/tinc_test_1 >> Subnet = 10.240.0.0/16 &g...

At 2013-09-09 13:07:07,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 09/09/2013 05:18 AM, Star Tan wrote: >> >> At 2013-09-09 05:52:35,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >> >>> On 09/08/2013 08:03 PM, Star Tan wrote: >>> Also, I wonder if your runs include the dependence analysis. If this is >>> the

On Sun, January 11, 2015 5:16 pm, Keith Keller wrote: > On 2015-01-11, Valeri Galtsev <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu> wrote: >> >> Indeed. Or another system altogether (sihg). I'm just extending your >> thought half a step farther ;-) > > Or going even farther, if you like CentOS but not systemd, do the work > to get CentOS working without it. Unhappy Debian

...; UDP address of tinc_test_1 set to 10.240.0.4 port 655 > UDP address of tinc_test_1 set to 104.154.59.151 port 655 > UDP address of tinc_test_1 set to 10.240.0.4 port 655 > repeatedly for a minute or so before finally settling on 10.240.0.4. > > Is there a reason it's flip flopping? Is that expected? Am I doing > something wrong? > > Additionally, we have multiple Google Compute regions with their own > subnets and external DCs with their own subnets and we'd like to install > tinc on all servers but keep inner-Google traffic to the internal IPs and > no...

Hello all, I have evaluated the compile-time and execution-time performance of Polly canonicalization passes. Details can be referred to http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/recent_activity. There are four runs: pollyBasic (run 45): clang -O3 -Xclang -load -Xclang LLVMPolly.so pollyNoGenSCEV (run 44): clang -O3 -Xclang -load -Xclang LLVMPolly.so -mllvm -polly -mllvm -polly-codegen-scev

...o 104.154.59.151 port 655 UDP address of tinc_test_1 set to 10.240.0.4 port 655 UDP address of tinc_test_1 set to 104.154.59.151 port 655 UDP address of tinc_test_1 set to 10.240.0.4 port 655 repeatedly for a minute or so before finally settling on 10.240.0.4. Is there a reason it's flip flopping? Is that expected? Am I doing something wrong? Additionally, we have multiple Google Compute regions with their own subnets and external DCs with their own subnets and we'd like to install tinc on all servers but keep inner-Google traffic to the internal IPs and not over external IPs since it&...

On 14 February 2017 at 18:59, James Hartig <james at levenlabs.com> wrote: > When you say "and to the local network" what IP does it try to send to > on the local network? The subnet address? No. The Subnet option deals with routing *inside* the VPN, not the underlying "real" network. In tinc 1.1, the address that local discovery probes are sent to is the local

Is there a way to boot PXELINUX 100% over HTTP instead of TFTP? I can pull over pxelinux.0 via HTTP (DHCP config) but all the config files are pulled over via TFTP. DHCPD config file example: filename "pxelinux.0" ; # boots via TFTP filename "http://10.1.1.10/pxelinux.0" # boots via HTTP My goal is to alternate booting between Linux and Memtest for some hardware stress

OK, seem to have answered my own question... I think. We'll see how it works out. Basically I should've been asking for some help in the dosemu forums because that's where I needed the help. I think I get it now.... mkdiskimage whatever size you need Set up dosemu to boot the precise DOS flavor you want from mounted folder also mount the image as secondary HDD fdisk, format, sys, etc

...inc_test_1 set to 10.240.0.4 port 655 >> UDP address of tinc_test_1 set to 104.154.59.151 port 655 >> UDP address of tinc_test_1 set to 10.240.0.4 port 655 >> repeatedly for a minute or so before finally settling on 10.240.0.4. >> >> Is there a reason it's flip flopping? Is that expected? Am I doing >> something wrong? > > No, you are not doing anything wrong. Although I've not seen this kind > of flip-flopping behavior myself, it is possible this behaviour occurs, > although it should only happen in the first 10 seconds or so. When > Loca...

Hi, Below you can see the updated benchmark results for the new SLP-vectorizer. As you can see, there is a small number of compile time regressions, a single major runtime *regression, and many performance gains. There is a tiny increase in code size: 30k for the whole test-suite. Based on the numbers below I would like to enable the SLP-vectorizer by default for -O3. Please let me know if you

On Jul 13, 2013, at 11:30 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > Hi, > > LLVM’s SLP-vectorizer is a new pass that combines similar independent instructions in a straight-line code. It is currently not enabled by default, and people who want to experiment with it can use the clang command line flag “-fslp-vectorize”. I ran LLVM’s test suite with and without the SLP

On Jul 14, 2013, at 9:52 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jul 13, 2013, at 11:30 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> LLVM’s SLP-vectorizer is a new pass that combines similar independent instructions in a straight-line code. It is currently not enabled by default, and people who want to experiment with it

On 09/09/2013 05:18 AM, Star Tan wrote: > > At 2013-09-09 05:52:35,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > >> On 09/08/2013 08:03 PM, Star Tan wrote: >> Also, I wonder if your runs include the dependence analysis. If this is >> the case, the numbers are very good. Otherwise, 30% overhead seems still >> to be a little bit much. > I think