similar to: adjusting transmit (tx) and receive thresholds

Hello Everyone, I was using OpenGroupware but just hosed my system. Since I'm starting from scratch I would like to know what everyone's using for web based mail. I currently implemented cyrus-imapd and postfix which I used before. I was going to give dovecot a try but it wouldn't start even though it was supposed to be easier. I would like to move my postfix to a chroot but have

Thanks, I'll give this a try. Ganeshram Iyer &lt;ganeshramiyer@gmail.com&gt; wrote: > On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:29:51 -0000, James Marcinek > <jmarc1@jemconsult.biz> wrote: > > Hello Everyone, > > > > I've been trying to figure out why I can't change passwords with my windows > > clients. I thought that at when I first built my smb.conf I

Hello All, I recently installed CentOS 5 and was trying to locate the kernel-smp packages but without success. Have these packages been removed from the distro or renamed? Does anyone know how many processors the default kernel will handle and if it's optimzed for it? Thanks, james

Hello, After a couple of years using Samba as a DC I figured I would start working it the other way around. I'm using CentOS, the latest and tried to use the GUI manager. I am sort of confused as there are acutally 2 windows. I filled out both and supplied the name of the AD administrator. Do I just put the AD domain in there with .realm after it? (eg testdomain.com.realm)? I tried with

> On Feb 16, 2017, at 4:41 PM, Xinliang David Li via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > First off, I just want to say wow and thank you. This kind of data is amazing. =D > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at

Thanks for running these Kristof! I'd still like to hear from Apple, and if we can get a few more x86 micro-architectures covered that'd be great, but it looks like -O3 is uncontroversial, and the question is whether this makes sense at O2... To me, it would help a lot to know the actual breakdown of benchmarks such as yours Kristof (as they seem to have more codesize impact than others

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:59 PM Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > > Another question is about PGO integration: is it already hooked there? > Should we have a more aggressive threshold in a hot function? (Assuming > we’re willing to spend some binary size there but not on the cold path). > > > I would even wire the *unrolling* the other way: just

Recollected the data from trunk head with stddev data and more threshold data points attached: Performance: stddev/mean 300 450 600 750 403 0.37% 0.11% 0.11% 0.09% 0.79% 433 0.14% 0.51% 0.25% -0.63% -0.29% 445 0.08% 0.48% 0.89% 0.12% 0.83% 447 0.16% 3.50% 2.69% 3.66% 3.59% 453 0.11% 1.49% 0.45% -0.07% 0.78% 464 0.17% 0.75% 1.80% 1.86% 1.54% Code size: 300 450 600 750 403 0.56% 2.41% 2.74% 3.75%

I had suggested having size metrics from somewhat larger applications such as Chrome, Webkit, or Firefox; clang itself; and maybe some of our internal binaries with rough size brackets? On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 4:33 PM Dehao Chen <dehao at google.com> wrote: > With the new data points, any comments on whether this can justify setting > fully inline threshold to 300 (or any other

> On Jan 30, 2017, at 4:56 PM, Dehao Chen <dehao at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com <mailto:chandlerc at google.com>> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:51 PM Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> On Jan 30,

First off, I just want to say wow and thank you. This kind of data is amazing. =D On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 2:46 AM Kristof Beyls <Kristof.Beyls at arm.com> wrote: > The biggest relative code size increases indeed didn't happen for the > biggest programs, but instead for a few programs weighing in at about 100KB. > I'm assuming the Google benchmark set covers much bigger

Hello Everyone, I've been trying to figure out why I can't change passwords with my windows clients. I thought that at when I first built my smb.conf I could. I'm running RHEL3 (I also have another system at a different location running FC3 with the same problem ). I've been looking through my smb.conf (see excerpts): # You may wish to use password encryption. Please read #

> On Feb 1, 2017, at 4:57 PM, Xinliang David Li via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > clang, chrome, and some internal large apps are good candidates for size metrics. I'd also add the standard LLVM testsuite just because it's the suite everyone in the community can use. Michael > > David > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Chandler Carruth via

Ping... with the updated code size impact data, any more comments? Any more data that would be interesting to collect? Thanks, Dehao On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Dehao Chen <dehao at google.com> wrote: > Here is the code size impact for clang, chrome and 24 google internal > benchmarks (name omited, 14 15 16 are encoding/decoding benchmarks similar > as h264). There are 2

On 02/07/2017 05:29 PM, Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev wrote: > Sorry if I missed it, but what machine/CPU are you using to collect > the perf numbers? > > I am concerned that what may be a win on a CPU that keeps a couple of > hundred instructions in-flight and has many MB of caches will not hold > for a small core. In my experience, unrolling tends to help weaker cores even more

> On Jan 30, 2017, at 10:49 AM, Dehao Chen via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Currently, loop fully unroller shares the same default threshold as loop dynamic unroller and partial unroller. This seems conservative because unlike dynamic/partial unrolling, fully unrolling will not affect LSD/ICache performance. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28368

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:51 PM Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On Jan 30, 2017, at 10:49 AM, Dehao Chen via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Currently, loop fully unroller shares the same default

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 2:06 PM Gerolf Hoflehner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > For unrolling specifically I agree with Hal that the hooks should be > target specific. Actually, I go further and think they should be uArch > specific. > They already are, it is just that no one has contributed a patch to use this on x86 microarchitectures. Until someone

Dear List, I have encountered an odd problem that I cannot understand. It stems from the calculation of true and false positives based on two input vectors x and y based on different thresholds of x, extracted using the quantile function. I am in certain cases getting different values of true positives for the same threshold value when the threshold was found under different quantiles (e.g. the

On 02/10/2017 05:21 PM, Dehao Chen wrote: > Thanks every for the comments. > > Do we have a decision here? You're good to go as far as I'm concerned. -Hal > > Dehao > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:24 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov > <mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote: > > > On 02/07/2017 05:29 PM, Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev wrote: