Displaying 20 results from an estimated 200 matches similar to: "Ultimate Linux Box (was RE: optimal windows R machine)"
2003 Feb 20
2
rsync vs. rcp
I got used to rsync's -v --progress option so much that I used it
instead of rcp even to simply copy files across the network. I dont
like software that doesnt talk to me! :-) I like the percentage bar
that --progress gives!
To my surprise, I found that, when dealing with 1GB+ files, rsync is
4-5 _times_ slower than rcp.
Yes, I know that rsync is optimized for sending deltas to a file
2019 Mar 27
4
monorepo: bad performance when using gitk / git log
Hi!
Anyone else experiencing performance problems when using the new monorepo?
My experience is that performance of gitk (and git log) sometimes is really bad when working in the monorepo.
I've mainly seen it when using gitk on specific files/directories, but since gitk seems to be using "git log --no-color -z --pretty=raw --show-notes --parents --boundary HEAD -- <file>" it
2011 Nov 01
3
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Upcoming Build System Changes
Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 3:09 PM, David A. Greene <greened at obbligato.org> wrote:
>> Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> writes:
>>
>>> Okay, we can get rid of recursive make. However, as pointed out
>>> elsewhere, removing recursive make will not make a difference on the
>>> LLVM build. What
2011 Nov 01
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Upcoming Build System Changes
Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> writes:
> Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> writes:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 3:09 PM, David A. Greene <greened at obbligato.org> wrote:
>>> Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> writes:
>>>
>>>> Okay, we can get rid of recursive make. However, as pointed out
>>>> elsewhere, removing
2010 Feb 10
2
system.time provides inaccurate sys.child (PR#14210)
Full_Name: Manuel L?pez-Ib??ez
Version: R version 2.6.2 (2008-02-08)
OS: linux-gnu
Submission from: (NULL) (164.15.10.156)
This is only relevant for CPU intensive child processes. Otherwise, the problem
is not obvious.
Therefore, we need a CPU intensive program like this one:
/************************************/
/*** Compile with: gcc -o timer-test -O0 timer-test.c -lm */
#include
2007 Apr 18
33
LZO compression?
Hi,
I don''t know if this has been discussed before, but have you thought
about adding LZO compression to ZFS?
One zfs-fuse user has provided a patch which implements LZO compression,
and he claims better compression ratios *and* better speed than lzjb.
The miniLZO library is licensed under the GPL, but the author
specifically says that other licenses are available by request.
Has this
2000 Jun 20
0
Test: Lame vs. Ogg/Vorbis -- warning big mail
Hi there.
First of all, I'd like to congratulate to developers
for making a free specification and LGPLed
decoder/encoder. :-).
I did some test, ripping 17 tracks of my CD and
converting them to both MP3 and OGG format.
MP3 encoder/player was Lame 3.70
OGG encoder/player was from a Saturday nightly
tgz package.
------------------------------------
MP3: LAME-3.70 mpg123-0.59r-4
MP3: lame -S
2000 Jun 20
0
Test: Lame vs. Ogg/Vorbis -- warning big mail
Hi there.
First of all, I'd like to congratulate to developers
for making a free specification and LGPLed
decoder/encoder. :-).
I did some test, ripping 17 tracks of my CD and
converting them to both MP3 and OGG format.
MP3 encoder/player was Lame 3.70
OGG encoder/player was from a Saturday nightly
tgz package.
------------------------------------
MP3: LAME-3.70 mpg123-0.59r-4
MP3: lame -S
2016 Apr 11
2
Xapian 1.3.5 snapshot performance and index size
Olly Betts writes:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 04:47:01PM +0200, Jean-Francois Dockes wrote:
> > Some might notice the 50% index size increase. Excessive index size is
> > already one relatively rare, but recurring complaint. Except if I did
> > something wrong: I'm actually quite surprised by it.
>
> Did you try compacting the resulting databases?
>
>
2007 Feb 14
2
ext3 filesystem performance question
Hi,
I'm running centos-4.4 on an SMP system with 4 dual core opterons (2.4 GHz),
and 16 GB memory.
The disk drives are 500 GB SATA-Drives.
Wondering about times for dd command performance and rm command performance in an empty machine
(the filesystem has been made with "mkfs.ext3 /dev/sd...", nothing more)
1. Making a new 3 GB (1024 x 3megabytes blocks) file with dd needs 10.18
2002 Sep 13
0
rsync 2.5.x doesn't like iso uploading with -z option
...but 2.4.3 worked fine. this is linux 2.4.18 with glibc 2.2.5 and
libz 1.1.4, if it matters, on both source and dest.
apparently something about trying to send a file ending with .iso gives
rsync a fit if the -z [compress] option is used.
$ time rsync -Pzv --stats cd1_en_binary.iso mail.cheek.com::root/home/ericom
Password:
cd1_en_binary.iso
rsync: error writing 16385 unbuffered bytes -
2020 Nov 25
1
[External] Re: .Internal(quit(...)): system call failed: Cannot allocate memory
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020, Jan Gorecki wrote:
> As for other calls to system. I avoid calling system. In the past I
> had some (to get memory stats from OS), but they were failing with
> exactly the same issue. So yes, if I would add call to system before
> calling quit, I believe it would fail with the same error.
> At the same time I think (although I am not sure) that new allocations
2011 Nov 01
1
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Upcoming Build System Changes
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 06:27:35PM -0500, David A. Greene wrote:
> Here is actual data comparing an empty LLVM build done recursively (the
> LLVM build) and non-recursively (the Cray build).
>
> See this?
>
> 0inputs+0outputs (0major+671804minor)pagefaults 0swaps
>
> vs. this?
>
> 0inputs+0outputs (0major+184605minor)pagefaults 0swaps
>
> That's I/O.
2011 Nov 02
1
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Upcoming Build System Changes
greened at obbligato.org (David A. Greene) writes:
> Ok, here are some hard numbers for empty builds:
>
> LLVM empty build:
> /usr/bin/time make -j16
> 4.32user 2.47system 0:03.21elapsed 211%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 13376maxresident)k
> 0inputs+0outputs (0major+671804minor)pagefaults 0swaps
So your 16-way machine takes 2.5 times more than my 4-way cheap desktop...
> Cray
2014 Jul 03
1
Slow Samba4 Domain Join
I used "/usr/bin/time" to time how long it took to join a DC to our
domain. It took 9 hours, 54 minutes and 16 seconds.
The logs follow:
Committing SAM database
Sending DsReplicateUpdateRefs for all the replicated partitions
Setting isSynchronized and dsServiceName
Setting up secrets database
Joined domain DIGIPEN.EDU (SID S-1-5-21-REDACTED) as a DC
35461.84user 26.13system
2016 Sep 26
3
(Thin)LTO llvm build
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Carsten Mattner <carstenmattner at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com>
> wrote:
> > No worries, thanks for the update. Teresa
>
> 2048 wasn't enough. Bumped to 4096. Only 1300 ninja targets left.
>
> Once I've been successful with this, I might try building a
2020 Nov 24
2
.Internal(quit(...)): system call failed: Cannot allocate memory
On 11/24/20 11:27 AM, Jan Gorecki wrote:
> Thanks Bill for checking that.
> It was my impression that warnings are raised from some internal
> system calls made when quitting R. At that point I don't have much
> control over checking the return status of those.
> Your suggestion looks good to me.
>
> Tomas, do you think this could help? could this be implemented?
I think
2002 Jul 03
11
sync slowness. ext3 on VIA vt82c686b
When I copy a file(13Megs) from /home/ to /tmp/, sync takes almost 2 minutes.
When I copy the same file to /usr/local/, sync returns almost right away. Both
filesystems are ext3 and are on the same harddrive. When sync is running,
the harddrive light stays on but I don't hear it doing anything. dmesg doesn't
show any errors either. Below is the `time` output for each command. If you
2016 Apr 12
2
Xapian 1.3.5 snapshot performance and index size
Olly Betts writes:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 09:54:36AM +0200, Jean-Francois Dockes wrote:
> > The question which remains for me is if I should run xapian-compact
> > after an initial indexing operation. I guess that this depends on the
> > amount of expected updates and that there is no easy answer ?
>
> I think it's not obvious whether it's a good plan
2008 Jun 11
0
PureComponents Ultimate Suite V2008.1 - 79 .NET WinForms Components for $79
PureComponents Ultimate Suite V2008.1 - The cheapest component suite there is!
PureComponents offer you component suite for excellent price of 1 USD per component. Purchase the set of 79 components for 79 USD.
Purchase 1 year subscription by June 30, and save 30%!
http://www.purecomponents.com/