similar to: how to reduce footprint of smbd?

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 1500 matches similar to: "how to reduce footprint of smbd?"

2009 May 12
1
questions on rpart (tree changes when rearrange the order of covariates?!)
Greetings, I am using rpart for classification with "class" method. The test data is the Indian diabetes data from package mlbench. I fitted a classification tree firstly using the original data, and then exchanged the order of Body mass and Plasma glucose which are the strongest/important variables in the growing phase. The second tree is a little different from the first one. The
2009 May 22
1
bug in rpart?
Greetings, I checked the Indian diabetes data again and get one tree for the data with reordered columns and another tree for the original data. I compared these two trees, the split points for these two trees are exactly the same but the fitted classes are not the same for some cases. And the misclassification errors are different too. I know how CART deal with ties --- even we are using the
2011 Apr 17
0
Samba connection problem
Hi,everyone, I'm currently sharing files with Samba,but i can't collect the samba server.the samba server is a centos5.5 and the client is a windows 7 PC. I can't find any resolution for this this is the log [2011/04/17 11:13:27, 1] smbd/service.c:make_connection_snum(1077) 192.168.1.14 (192.168.1.14) connect to service public initially as user nobody
2007 Jul 15
2
[LLVMdev] JIT Leaks?
First, I'm not sure if deleting the ExecutionEngine is all I need to clean-up... so I started with a minimal test just to check int main( int argc, char **argv ){ while( true ){ Module *M = new Module("M"); Function *F = cast<Function>(M->getOrInsertFunction("F", Type::Int32Ty, (Type*)0)); BasicBlock *BB = new
2007 Jul 15
0
[LLVMdev] JIT Leaks?
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, Paolo Invernizzi wrote: > First, I'm not sure if deleting the ExecutionEngine is all I need to > clean-up... so I started with a minimal test just to check Is this llvm 2.0 or llvm svn head? Several minor memory leaks have been fixed since llvm 2.0. -Chris > int main( int argc, char **argv ){ > while( true ){ > Module *M = new
2010 Dec 24
1
reducing smbd memory footprint
I'm currently compiling Samba 3.3.X with the following: CFLAGS = -g -Wall -O2 ./configure --cache-file=./config.cache \ --with-fhs \ --enable-shared \ --prefix=/usr \ --sysconfdir=/etc \ --libdir=/usr/lib/samba \ --with-privatedir=/etc/samba \ --with-piddir=/var/run/samba \
2013 Nov 12
0
[LLVMdev] How to reduce the footprint of MDNodes? (About the comment you made at BOF LTO)
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Manman (and llvmdev), > > I filed these two bugs to track the ideas that I was cooking: > > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=17891 > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=17892 > > TL;DR: I'm saying we should go from: > > !14 = metadata !{i32 786445, metadata !1,
2013 Nov 13
0
[LLVMdev] How to reduce the footprint of MDNodes? (About the comment you made at BOF LTO)
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:31 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > Where would the encoding schema be specified? >>> >> >> Same question applies to a string encoding. We have to define the schema >> somewhere clearly. I'm just lobbying for the textual IR and the APIs to >> both operate directly on N fields, and just make the memory
2013 Nov 12
3
[LLVMdev] How to reduce the footprint of MDNodes? (About the comment you made at BOF LTO)
Hi Manman (and llvmdev), I filed these two bugs to track the ideas that I was cooking: http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=17891 http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=17892 TL;DR: I'm saying we should go from: !14 = metadata !{i32 786445, metadata !1, metadata !10, metadata !"y", i32 3, i64 32, i64 32, i64 32, i32 0, metadata !13} to: !14 = metadata
2013 Nov 13
3
[LLVMdev] How to reduce the footprint of MDNodes? (About the comment you made at BOF LTO)
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > >> I'm moderately opposed to just encoding these in a string format. I think >> we can do something substantially better both for space, time, and >> readability. Fundamentally, there is no
2013 Nov 13
0
[LLVMdev] How to reduce the footprint of MDNodes? (About the comment you made at BOF LTO)
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > I'm moderately opposed to just encoding these in a string format. I think > we can do something substantially better both for space, time, and > readability. Fundamentally, there is no reason for the original metadata > node you describe to not *encode* its operands into a dense bit-packed blob
2003 Feb 21
2
One last windows/linux question
One last windows/linux question... We have an exchange server, only accessible by the exchange protocols. I.E. no pop, no Imap, and no web. What can I use Linux side to connect to this? (here's my attempt, to be the only one on the network NOT to use windows) J
2015 May 21
2
[LLVMdev] RFC: Reduce the memory footprint of DIEs (and DIEValues)
With just those four patches, memory usage went *up* slightly. Add in the 5th patch (which does #2 below), and we get an overall memory drop of 4%. The intermediate result of a memory increase makes sense. While the first four patches reduce the number of (and size of) `DIEValue` allocations, they increase the cost of the `SmallVector` overhead. 0005 (attached) squeezes the abbreviation data
2013 Nov 13
3
[LLVMdev] How to reduce the footprint of MDNodes? (About the comment you made at BOF LTO)
On Nov 12, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Manman (and llvmdev), > > I filed these two bugs to track the ideas that I was cooking: > > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=17891 > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=17892 > > TL;DR:
2015 May 24
3
[LLVMdev] RFC: Reduce the memory footprint of DIEs (and DIEValues)
> On 2015 May 20, at 17:51, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > > >> On 2015 May 20, at 17:39, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: >> >> With just those four patches, memory usage went *up* slightly. Add in >> the 5th patch (which does #2 below), and we get an overall memory drop >> of 4%. > >
2015 Jan 08
0
setequal: better readability, reduced memory footprint, and minor speedup
If you look at the definition of %in%, you'll find that it is implemented using match, so if we did as you suggest, I give it about three days before someone suggests to inline the function call... Readability of source code is not usually our prime concern. The && idea does have some merit, though. Apropos, why is there no setcontains()? -pd > On 06 Jan 2015, at 22:02 , Herv?
2015 Jan 08
0
setequal: better readability, reduced memory footprint, and minor speedup
I was thinking something like: setequal <- function(x,y) { xu = unique(x) yu = unique(y) if (length(xu) != length(yu)) { return FALSE; } return (all( match( xu, yu, 0L ) > 0L ) ) } This lets you fail early for cheap (skipping the allocation from the ">0L"s). Whether or not this goes fast depends a lot on the uniqueness of x and y and whether or not you want to optimize for
2007 Feb 04
5
Unicall/R2 for Asterisk 1.4 Available for TESTING
Im glad to let you know that finally I invested some time to make work Unicall in Asterisk 1.4, I must say not much testing could be done since I have no hardware available ( cards, servers ), however a friend was able to test it with a couple of calls with success, I need you to test this and report some feedback. The sources are available in: http://moy.ivsol.net/unicall/soft-switch/r1b1/
2006 Jan 03
2
Reducing Memory Footprint (fcgi)
I have a website up and running on TextDrive with Rails/lighttpd/fcgi. Unfortunately, as my account is a "shared server" account on TxD, they kill processes that are hogging resources (quite understandably). Unfortunately for me, my Ruby fcgi processes load up rather ... large (just under 50mb). It doesn''t take much to push it to 50mb, at which point it gets killed. Does
2015 Jan 08
3
setequal: better readability, reduced memory footprint, and minor speedup
How about unique them both and compare the lengths? It's less work, especially allocation. Pete ____________________ Peter M. Haverty, Ph.D. Genentech, Inc. phaverty at gene.com On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:30 PM, peter dalgaard <pdalgd at gmail.com> wrote: > If you look at the definition of %in%, you'll find that it is implemented > using match, so if we did as you suggest,