Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 111

Thread: Arch BSD: Arch Linux Atop The FreeBSD Kernel

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Ghent
    Posts
    198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ncopa View Post

    PS. is there some way to filter out messages in this thread that uses font size over a given limit?
    Or better yet - is there a way to auto-ignore posts from a specific user?

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ncopa View Post
    is there some way to filter out messages in this thread that uses font size over a given limit?
    Not sure if this forum here has an Ignore button. If it has, press it. The Linux kiddies need some attention every now and then.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by staalmannen View Post
    Or better yet - is there a way to auto-ignore posts from a specific user?
    Checked. Yup: Open his profile, see the left sidebar.

  4. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LightBit View Post
    You mean LinuxThreads library? Well that is because Linux now uses NTPL, which uses Linux specific system calls. So they had to do their own, which is probably not slower than LinuxThreads.
    I'm not freebsd user and never was, I'm occasional OpenBSD user.
    That's right and freebsd used LinuxThreads library in the past and switched later to some crap (probably, because of same political reasons like GCC to llvm switch, so not because of the reason you described).

    So Light Weight Kernel Threads are very similar to Linux kernel threads? I couldn't found any reference.
    Virtual kernel feature is similar to User Mode Linux, but it's not performance feature:
    Yes, they're similar:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-weight_process
    http://www.dragonflybsd.org/features/

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    That's right and freebsd used LinuxThreads library in the past and switched later to some crap (probably, because of same political reasons like GCC to llvm switch, so not because of the reason you described).
    Probably it was also political reason. (they could port NPTL instead)
    And of course Linux is totally unpolitical.


    Only similarity I see:
    In computer operating systems, a light-weight process (LWP) is a means of achieving multitasking.

  6. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ryao View Post
    Do you have a reference for your Linux threads comment? If you know how a kernel works, you should know how absurd that statement is.
    http://www.freebsdsoftware.org/devel/linuxthreads.html
    http://www.unobvious.com/bsd/freebsd-threads.html

    There are two major classes of threads for FreeBSD. The first is the default FreeBSD thread package, referred to henceforth as "uthreads" or "user threads". The other is the Linuxthreads port, which is a port of Linux's kernel threads based on the clone() call (or, in FreeBSD's case, the rfork() call).
    http://static.usenix.org/event/bsdco...tml/node5.html

    TWC considered using an alternate thread library to work around these problems. Specifically, the thread library contained in the LinuxThreads port described at [LinuxThreads]. However, there are binary incompatibilities between the structures defined by FreeBSD's thread library and the LinuxThreads' thread library. Thus, any libraries used by a multithreaded application that use threads internally must be linked against the same thread library as the application. As a result, for our applications to use LinuxThreads, all of the libraries they link against that use threads internally would also have to link against LinuxThreads. As a result of those libraries using LinuxThreads, other applications that use those libraries would also have to link against LinuxThreads. This would require TWC to custom compile several packages including XFree86, Mesa, Python, and a CORBA ORB as well as other applications depending on those packages rather than using the pre-built packages from stock FreeBSD releases. Since the workarounds for FreeBSD's thread library were not too egregious, they were chosen as the lesser of two evils.
    This legacy OS was also using M:N threading implementation just to switch to 1:1 like Linux does.

    Compilers do not matter very much as far as performance goes. Better aglorithms and code that plays well with cache will always matter more than anything a compiler could do.
    Yay, Gentoo developer have spoken. I wonder why freebsd with GCC was way faster than with llvm? I also wonder why the hell you care, so much about compiler and optimization flags? Damn hippo.

    Dtrace and ZFS could be called a "tech preview" in FreeBSD 7.x and FreeBSD 8.0-8.2. It is fairly mature in FreeBSD 8.3 and later. At this point, ZFS and Dtrace are no more of a "tech preview" than DragonflyBSD is.
    Hammer was developed for years for DragonflyBSD especially and it's far more mature than zfs on freebsd.

    Lastly, DragonflyBSD has influences from AmigaOS, not Linux.
    If you have no clue, just shut up.

    DragonflyBSD has its merits, but it is different, not better.
    It's way better and modern.

  7. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LightBit View Post
    Probably it was also political reason. (they could port NPTL instead)
    And of course Linux is totally unpolitical.
    Linux is unpolitical in a very different and positive contest.

    Only similarity I see:
    Then take a look here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DragonFly_BSD

    "The serializing token code is evolving into something quite similar to the "Read-copy-update" feature now available in Linux. Unlike Linux's current RCU implementation, DragonFly's is being implemented such that only processors competing for the same token are affected rather than all processors in the computer."

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Ghent
    Posts
    198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhux View Post
    Checked. Yup: Open his profile, see the left sidebar.
    Awesome. Thanks.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Linux is unpolitical in a very different and positive contest.
    For me switch to Clang/LLVM was positive.
    And Ubuntu not switching to systemd is of course unpolitical.
    Also Git replaced BitKeeper, because of political reasons.


    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Then take a look here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DragonFly_BSD

    "The serializing token code is evolving into something quite similar to the "Read-copy-update" feature now available in Linux. Unlike Linux's current RCU implementation, DragonFly's is being implemented such that only processors competing for the same token are affected rather than all processors in the computer."
    OK, this is similar.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackout23 View Post
    Now if only someone would develop ArchWindows.
    I dunno?,
    but seriously, and especially after Win8, I'm definitely sure an ArchDOS would be infinitely better, (even for a modern Tablet), than any "ArchWindows" -?! - ewww.
    IMHO, ArchBSD is all that foronicks would need, 'ya know, like it's BSD, but it feels like Linux. It's the best of both UNIX worlds, and we'd never know the difference.
    ...waiting.
    Last edited by scjet; 01-25-2013 at 11:23 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •