|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 147 responses total. |
jep
|
|
response 25 of 147:
| 
Mar 23 15:17 UTC 1998 |
Backtalk is running very quickly indeed. For us WWW users, this was a
very significant upgrade.
Thanks!
|
valerie
|
|
response 26 of 147:
|
Mar 23 15:18 UTC 1998 |
This response has been erased.
|
janc
|
|
response 27 of 147:
|
Mar 23 15:20 UTC 1998 |
It's no more of a resource hog than vi is, I don't think. I have no problem
with it.
|
janc
|
|
response 28 of 147:
|
Mar 23 15:22 UTC 1998 |
Oh, I had entered special thanks for Mike and Jared, but I forgot Rob Argy.
Rob did most of the shopping for parts for the new machine and helped put it
all together.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 29 of 147:
|
Mar 23 16:08 UTC 1998 |
Let me add my "THANKS!" to those responsible for making an apparently seamless
upgrade to grex. Right now it is "screaming" right along, and the browse
command is even speedy! :-)
|
dpc
|
|
response 30 of 147:
|
Mar 23 16:56 UTC 1998 |
Thanx to all! Excellent work--Grex is usable again!
|
dpc
|
|
response 31 of 147:
|
Mar 23 16:59 UTC 1998 |
Wow--ttyuse even works! I'm dialing in, and wound up on t8.
Are the t* ttys the dialins, or is it random?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 32 of 147:
|
Mar 23 17:16 UTC 1998 |
The radio conference has been restarted. Join radio to find a whole
new space in which to discuss any aspects of radio, from amateur radio
to z... What begins with z? (The form radio cf. is archived as oldradio.)
|
mdw
|
|
response 33 of 147:
|
Mar 23 19:36 UTC 1998 |
pty assignments by telnetd, rlogind, & sshd are random.
|
srw
|
|
response 34 of 147:
|
Mar 23 19:38 UTC 1998 |
Mike, we don't discourage people from bringng over packages and
compiling them. We merely ask them to ask staff first. There are two
reasons we ask that:
(1) In many cases the application has no chance of working on grex,
or no chance of working except for members.
(2) In many cases the application is already installed here.
Reasonable requests for staff to build the package and install it are
usually honored, but this varies as it depends on the nature of the
program and the availablility of staff time and CPU time. nvi looks like
something we would do upon request anyway.
(Well, CPU time is more plentiful than staff time at the moment. )
|
birdlady
|
|
response 35 of 147:
|
Mar 23 19:46 UTC 1998 |
Wow! Thanks for all of the hard work! I can actually see what I'm typing
AS I type it... ;-)
|
mag
|
|
response 36 of 147:
|
Mar 23 20:23 UTC 1998 |
Thanks to all staff members and everyone who contributed (especially Grex
current and past members) for your contribution to the current system! It's
_much_ faster! 50 users and a load average of < 1....mightily impressive!:)
No major lag bouts to me here in Aussie yet either:) Thanks again to you all!
|
gibson
|
|
response 37 of 147:
|
Mar 23 20:29 UTC 1998 |
What is load average and how does it affect the speed?
|
dpc
|
|
response 38 of 147:
|
Mar 23 21:57 UTC 1998 |
The load average is related to the number of items waiting to be
processed by the System. The lower, the better.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 39 of 147:
|
Mar 24 01:50 UTC 1998 |
I'll add my thank you here. Good work, with sucess at the end.
You all musta done a lot of testing in the past weeks & months.
|
gibson
|
|
response 40 of 147:
|
Mar 24 02:29 UTC 1998 |
How is the load average figured?
|
steve
|
|
response 41 of 147:
|
Mar 24 03:22 UTC 1998 |
Basically, imprecisely.
The Load Average is only a relative indicator of how bogged down
the system is. On the older Sun-4/260, a load average of anything
below 5 was pretty good (3 was excellent), and in the range of 10
was fairly common. By 17 you might have thought you were on a
broken system.
In theory the LA is the number of processes in the run queue
at a given point in time. The more things there are to run the
higher the number. I sayin theory however, because on the 4/260
a load average of 15 - 19 felt distinctly worse to me than 25+
did, so I don't think there is a perfect coorelation between
the load av and system speed.
|
gibson
|
|
response 42 of 147:
|
Mar 24 05:42 UTC 1998 |
- Where do i look it up if i want to follow it?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 43 of 147:
|
Mar 24 05:56 UTC 1998 |
"uptime" or "w"
> Ok: !uptime
> 12:54am up 1 day, 22:09, 61 users, load average: 2.29, 1.88, 1.93
> Ok: !w | head -4
> 12:55am up 1 day, 22:10, 62 users, load average: 2.17, 1.89, 1.93
> User tty login@ idle JCPU PCPU what
> n8rxs ttyp1 8:14pm 4:02 19 /usr/local/bin/xyzmodem/kerm
> laks ttyp2 12:03am 1 10 9 talk devip TERM=vt220 220
|
garima
|
|
response 44 of 147:
|
Mar 24 05:58 UTC 1998 |
Well, to all who brought about these wonderful changes :
Congratulations, and thank you.
|
srw
|
|
response 45 of 147:
|
Mar 24 06:51 UTC 1998 |
A lot of people raised a lot of money to buy the hardware. They deserve
the most thanks. It was not cheap, but the power of this new
configuration is exhilarating. Pedal to the metal.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 46 of 147:
|
Mar 24 07:15 UTC 1998 |
well, "exhilarating" might be a bit of an overstatement but I'd
agree to "refreshingly responsive.."
|
aruba
|
|
response 47 of 147:
|
Mar 24 07:15 UTC 1998 |
Indeed. Inspired by srw, I'd like to thank all of the people who contributed
to the fund drive which paid for almost all of the new computer:
ajax, arthurp, cmcgee, dam, dang, dpc, giry, glenda, janc, jshafer, kami,
kaplan, lotte, mnl2e, nephi, remmers, samar, scg, scott, srw, steve, stevens,
tsty, and void.
Thanks everyone!
|
remmers
|
|
response 48 of 147:
|
Mar 24 07:43 UTC 1998 |
I'm Grexing via the Backtalk web interface right now, and whoever
said that Backtalk is fast on the new machine certainly is correct.
In fact, Backtalk seems faster than Picospan usually did on the
old Sun.
|
void
|
|
response 49 of 147:
|
Mar 24 09:14 UTC 1998 |
add mine to the growing list of thanks and appreciation. thanks!
|
