gmane.os.netbsd.devel.performance archive

385 archived articles, newest first (page 2 of 4). Latest articles →

Our price $129 Autodesk Autocad 2008
Sun, 7 Oct 2007 15:02:02 +0000 (UTC)
"Margo Abernathy" <[email protected]> • #660
obtain a macro body part Humberto
Sun, 7 Oct 2007 12:47:13 +0000 (UTC)
"Carlton Bryan" <[email protected]> • #659
$269.90 Creative 3 Premium
Sun, 7 Oct 2007 04:38:13 +0000 (UTC)
"Shannon Medina" <[email protected]> • #658
Re: LFS performance and kern.maxvnodes
Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:01:09 -0400
David Holland <[email protected]> • #657
Re: LFS performance and kern.maxvnodes
Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:46:40 -0400
"Blair Sadewitz" <[email protected]> • #656
Re: LFS performance and kern.maxvnodes
Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:06:40 -0400
Allen Briggs <[email protected]> • #655
Re: LFS performance and kern.maxvnodes
Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:41:03 +1000
Simon Burge <[email protected]> • #654
Re: LFS performance and kern.maxvnodes
Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:54:35 -0400
"Blair Sadewitz" <[email protected]> • #653
Re: LFS performance and kern.maxvnodes
Tue, 11 Sep 2007 01:19:06 +0200
Adam Hamsik <[email protected]> • #652
Re: LFS performance and kern.maxvnodes
Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:01:52 -0400
"Blair Sadewitz" <[email protected]> • #651
Re: LFS performance and kern.maxvnodes
Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:00:18 +1000
Daniel Carosone <[email protected]> • #650
LFS performance and kern.maxvnodes
Mon, 27 Aug 2007 03:56:22 -0400
"Blair Sadewitz" <[email protected]> • #649
Re: Looking for help with high volume MySQL
Fri, 17 Aug 2007 18:30:51 -0400 (EDT)
"Matthew Mondor" <[email protected]> • #648
Looking for help with high volume MySQL
Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:48:10 +0000 (UTC)
John Klos <[email protected]> • #647
RAIDframe queueing strategies, LFS, etc.
Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:05:55 -0400
"Blair Sadewitz" <[email protected]> • #646
Re: LFS "smooth" syncer workaround/performance tuning
Tue, 3 Apr 2007 08:26:32 -0400
"Blair Sadewitz" <[email protected]> • #645
Re: LFS "smooth" syncer workaround/performance tuning
Tue, 3 Apr 2007 10:00:20 +0200
"Juan RP" <[email protected]> • #644
Re: LFS "smooth" syncer workaround/performance tuning addendum
Sun, 1 Apr 2007 21:30:12 -0400
"Blair Sadewitz" <[email protected]> • #643
LFS "smooth" syncer workaround/performance tuning
Sun, 1 Apr 2007 21:15:54 -0400
"Blair Sadewitz" <[email protected]> • #642
Re: appropriate CCD interleave for LFS
Wed, 8 Nov 2006 10:07:31 -0800
Jason Thorpe <[email protected]> • #639
appropriate CCD interleave for LFS
Tue, 7 Nov 2006 23:04:31 -0500
"Blair Sadewitz" <[email protected]> • #638
Re: anecdotal ccd interleave performance numbers on sparc64
Mon, 24 Jul 2006 00:51:32 -0700
"Erik E. Fair" <[email protected]> • #637
Re: anecdotal ccd interleave performance numbers on sparc64
Mon, 24 Jul 2006 03:44:59 -0400
Thor Lancelot Simon <[email protected]> • #636
anecdotal ccd interleave performance numbers on sparc64
Mon, 24 Jul 2006 00:33:56 -0700
"Erik E. Fair" <[email protected]> • #635
Re: Benchmarking a 4way
Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:58:23 -0400 (EDT)
Gary Thorpe <[email protected]> • #634
Benchmarking a 4way
Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:00:48 -0500 (CDT)
ober <[email protected]> • #633
Re: Running XENU on vnodes.
Sat, 29 Apr 2006 03:30:00 +0200 (CEST)
Hubert Feyrer <[email protected]> • #631
misc. MMU: NUMA, big pages, idle zero, ring buffers, PAE, ...
Fri, 28 Apr 2006 23:33:01 +0000 (GMT)
[email protected] • #630
Re: Running XENU on vnodes.
Fri, 28 Apr 2006 16:13:39 -0400
Greg Troxel <[email protected]> • #629
Re: Running XENU on vnodes.
Fri, 28 Apr 2006 22:08:01 +0200 (CEST)
Hubert Feyrer <[email protected]> • #628
Re: Running XENU on vnodes.
Fri, 28 Apr 2006 19:57:45 +0000
Marcin Jessa <[email protected]> • #627
Re: Running XENU on vnodes.
Fri, 28 Apr 2006 14:15:53 -0400
Greg Troxel <[email protected]> • #626
Re: Running XENU on vnodes.
Fri, 28 Apr 2006 18:59:33 +0200 (CEST)
Hubert Feyrer <[email protected]> • #625
Re: Running XENU on vnodes.
Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:28:01 -0400
Greg Troxel <[email protected]> • #624
Running XENU on vnodes.
Fri, 28 Apr 2006 16:20:24 +0200
Marcin Jessa <[email protected]> • #623
Re: performance impact of branch prediction?
21 Apr 2006 14:26:18 -0400
"Nathan J. Williams" <[email protected]> • #622
performance impact of branch prediction?
Fri, 21 Apr 2006 15:57:55 +0200 (CEST)
Hubert Feyrer <[email protected]> • #621
Re: outsmarted - disk transfer rates
Mon, 20 Feb 2006 13:46:40 -0800
Jason Thorpe <[email protected]> • #620
Re: outsmarted - disk transfer rates
Sun, 19 Feb 2006 19:11:42 -0800
Alfred Perlstein <[email protected]> • #619
outsmarted - disk transfer rates
Mon, 20 Feb 2006 10:16:19 +1100
Tyler Retzlaff <[email protected]> • #618
Re: PostgreSQL
Fri, 10 Feb 2006 04:39:50 -0800
Todd Whitesel <[email protected]> • #617
Re: PostgreSQL
Sat, 4 Feb 2006 04:15:35 -0500 (EST)
Matthew Orgass <[email protected]> • #616
Re: PostgreSQL
Fri, 03 Feb 2006 23:23:24 -0800
"Garrett D'Amore" <[email protected]> • #615
Re: PostgreSQL
Sat, 4 Feb 2006 09:09:46 +0900 (JST)
Curt Sampson <[email protected]> • #614
Re: PostgreSQL
Fri, 3 Feb 2006 11:41:52 -0500
Thor Lancelot Simon <[email protected]> • #613
Re: PostgreSQL
Fri, 03 Feb 2006 16:47:57 +0100
Johnny Billquist <[email protected]> • #612
Re: PostgreSQL
Fri, 03 Feb 2006 07:49:01 -0800
"Garrett D'Amore" <[email protected]> • #611
Re: PostgreSQL
Fri, 3 Feb 2006 07:30:48 -0800
Alfred Perlstein <[email protected]> • #610
Re: PostgreSQL
Fri, 03 Feb 2006 10:28:10 -0500
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> • #609
Re: addendum to i686 testing
Fri, 03 Feb 2006 08:19:23 -0700 (MST)
Tim Rightnour <[email protected]> • #608
Re: addendum to i686 testing
Fri, 3 Feb 2006 16:09:22 +0100
Martin Husemann <[email protected]> • #607
Re: addendum to i686 testing
Fri, 3 Feb 2006 10:04:06 -0500
Thor Lancelot Simon <[email protected]> • #606
Re: PostgreSQL
Fri, 3 Feb 2006 14:46:56 +0000 (GMT)
"Edward B. DREGER" <[email protected]> • #605
addendum to i686 testing
Fri, 03 Feb 2006 06:57:11 -0700 (MST)
Tim Rightnour <[email protected]> • #604
Re: PostgreSQL
Fri, 3 Feb 2006 12:07:03 +0100
[email protected] • #603
Re: PostgreSQL
Fri, 03 Feb 2006 10:28:27 +0000
Chris Wareham <[email protected]> • #602
Re: PostgreSQL
Fri, 03 Feb 2006 09:31:45 +0100
Johnny Billquist <[email protected]> • #601
Re: PostgreSQL
Fri, 03 Feb 2006 09:20:04 +0100
Johnny Billquist <[email protected]> • #600
Re: PostgreSQL
Fri, 3 Feb 2006 14:32:57 +0900 (JST)
Curt Sampson <[email protected]> • #599
Re: PostgreSQL
Fri, 3 Feb 2006 05:02:44 +0000 (GMT)
"Edward B. DREGER" <[email protected]> • #598
Re: PostgreSQL
Fri, 3 Feb 2006 12:28:57 +0900 (JST)
Curt Sampson <[email protected]> • #597
Re: PostgreSQL
Fri, 3 Feb 2006 10:17:20 +1030
Greg 'groggy' Lehey <[email protected]> • #596
Re: PostgreSQL
Fri, 3 Feb 2006 10:12:28 +1030
Greg 'groggy' Lehey <[email protected]> • #595
Re: PostgreSQL
Thu, 02 Feb 2006 21:56:29 +0100
Vincent <[email protected]> • #594
Re: benchmarks for entire OS built with -march=i686
Thu, 2 Feb 2006 15:18:47 -0500
Matthew Mondor <[email protected]> • #593
Re: PostgreSQL
Thu, 2 Feb 2006 18:16:30 +0000 (GMT)
"Edward B. DREGER" <[email protected]> • #592
benchmarks for entire OS built with -march=i686
Thu, 02 Feb 2006 10:25:16 -0700 (MST)
Tim Rightnour <[email protected]> • #591
Re: PostgreSQL
Thu, 2 Feb 2006 15:37:29 +0000
Patrick Welche <[email protected]> • #590
Re: PostgreSQL
Thu, 02 Feb 2006 16:27:17 +0100
Johnny Billquist <[email protected]> • #589
Re: PostgreSQL
Thu, 2 Feb 2006 09:42:38 -0500 (EST)
der Mouse <[email protected]> • #588
Re: PostgreSQL
Thu, 2 Feb 2006 15:42:18 +0100
Ignatios Souvatzis <[email protected]> • #587
Re: PostgreSQL
Thu, 02 Feb 2006 14:35:29 +0100
Johnny Billquist <[email protected]> • #586
Re: PostgreSQL
Thu, 02 Feb 2006 07:53:51 -0500
"Steven M. Bellovin" <[email protected]> • #585
Re: PostgreSQL
Thu, 02 Feb 2006 13:02:37 +0100
Johnny Billquist <[email protected]> • #584
Re: PostgreSQL
Thu, 2 Feb 2006 12:36:37 +0100
Ignatios Souvatzis <[email protected]> • #583
Re: PostgreSQL
Thu, 2 Feb 2006 19:32:16 +0900 (JST)
Curt Sampson <[email protected]> • #582
Re: PostgreSQL
Thu, 2 Feb 2006 11:25:13 +0100
Marcin Jessa <[email protected]> • #581
Re: PostgreSQL
Wed, 1 Feb 2006 19:43:20 -0800
Alfred Perlstein <[email protected]> • #580
Re: PostgreSQL
Thu, 2 Feb 2006 04:23:50 +0100
[email protected] • #578
Re: PostgreSQL
Thu, 2 Feb 2006 04:15:42 +0100
[email protected] • #577
Re: PostgreSQL
Thu, 2 Feb 2006 03:07:00 +0000
[email protected] • #576
Re: PostgreSQL
Wed, 1 Feb 2006 18:58:04 -0800
Alfred Perlstein <[email protected]> • #575
Re: PostgreSQL
Wed, 01 Feb 2006 20:16:57 -0500
Neil Conway <[email protected]> • #574
Re: PostgreSQL
Thu, 2 Feb 2006 12:29:23 +1030
Greg 'groggy' Lehey <[email protected]> • #573
Re: PostgreSQL
Thu, 2 Feb 2006 02:54:18 +0100
[email protected] • #572
Re: PostgreSQL
Wed, 01 Feb 2006 20:55:12 -0500
Neil Conway <[email protected]> • #571
Re: PostgreSQL
Thu, 2 Feb 2006 10:37:43 +0900 (JST)
Curt Sampson <[email protected]> • #570
Re: PostgreSQL
Wed, 1 Feb 2006 16:59:10 -0800
Alfred Perlstein <[email protected]> • #569
Re: PostgreSQL
Wed, 1 Feb 2006 17:28:17 -0800
Alfred Perlstein <[email protected]> • #568
Re: PostgreSQL
Thu, 2 Feb 2006 01:19:06 +0000
[email protected] • #567
Re: PostgreSQL
Thu, 2 Feb 2006 10:07:28 +0900 (JST)
Curt Sampson <[email protected]> • #566
Re: PostgreSQL
Thu, 2 Feb 2006 11:04:33 +1000
George Michaelson <[email protected]> • #565
Re: PostgreSQL
Thu, 2 Feb 2006 11:30:18 +1030
Greg 'groggy' Lehey <[email protected]> • #564
Re: PostgreSQL
Thu, 2 Feb 2006 11:56:55 +1100
Daniel Carosone <[email protected]> • #563
Re: PostgreSQL
Thu, 2 Feb 2006 00:49:51 +0000
[email protected] • #562
Re: PostgreSQL
Thu, 2 Feb 2006 09:43:50 +0900 (JST)
Curt Sampson <[email protected]> • #561
Re: PostgreSQL
Thu, 2 Feb 2006 11:04:12 +1030
Greg 'groggy' Lehey <[email protected]> • #560
Re: PostgreSQL
Thu, 2 Feb 2006 01:16:16 +0100
[email protected] • #559
PostgreSQL
Thu, 2 Feb 2006 00:06:35 +0000
Marcin Jessa <[email protected]> • #558
Re: 3D acceleration testings
Fri, 13 Jan 2006 01:35:11 -0600
"Jonathan A. Kollasch" <[email protected]> • #557
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.