Comments for Parolski.com

Comment on Static IPs with NWAM by James

James — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:41:24 +0000

The spec for Phase 1 of NWAM includes multiple concurrent wired links, If I recall correctly Phase 0.5 didn’t.

http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/download/Project+nwam/Phase1Spec/ncp.html

Comment on Static IPs with NWAM by Anton Parol

Anton Parol — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:40:13 +0000

Haven’t tried that yet, but guessing by your tone, perhaps its established that it doesn’t scale in that direction.
Theres one more method for static IPs on OpenSolaris, I’ll blog about that one too at some point.
The original reason for this post was as a note to a friend whose thinking of deploying an OpenSolaris machine as an iSCSI target in his data center.

Comment on Static IPs with NWAM by Lewis

Lewis — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 08:41:12 +0000

Great. Now how do I have two static IPs defined and DHCP for another, all using NWAM?

Comment on Star7 PDA Prototype by janina

janina — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:08:53 +0000

how funny…he clearly likes playing with houses and whats inside them- genious

Comment on Star7 PDA Prototype by Anton Parol

Anton Parol — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:38:20 +0000

From wikipdia:
“James Gosling initiated the Java language project in June 1991 for use in one of his many set-top box projects.[9] The language, initially called Oak after an oak tree that stood outside Gosling’s office, also went by the name Green and ended up later renamed as Java, from a list of random words.[10] Gosling aimed to implement a virtual machine and a language that had a familiar C/C++ style of notation.[11]”

You gonna make one rish?

Comment on Star7 PDA Prototype by Rishi

Rishi — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:34:26 +0000

Hi..
Was this box actually developed before JAVA was born?
Coz if my memory serves me well, these JAVA ppl were making some OS to run on TV which eventually flopped. Could this me a kinda lounge remote they worked on as a secret project?
I like it.. Pretty cool.

Comment on House of God to get capacity upgrade by Alexwebmaster

Alexwebmaster — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 09:17:18 +0000

Hello webmaster
I would like to share with you a link to your site
write me here preonrelt@mail.ru

Comment on Half a half: Part 2 by Liam McBrien

Liam McBrien — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:09:32 +0000

OK, so here’s how those two runs stack up against each other:

With the I/O, the tests take 1.019s and 322.714s, meaning that the loop version is roughly 317 times slower (322.714 / 1.019).

Without the I/O, the tests take 0.292s and 21.83s, meaning that the loop version is roughly 75 times slower (21.83/0.292).

So, by removing the console output from the loop program, we get over four times better performance relative to the non-loop version (317/75). This means that roughly 80% of the loop version’s execution time must be the I/O – just goes to show it’s always worth looking at where the bottlenecks in a system are!

Comment on Half a half: Part 2 by Anton Parol

Anton Parol — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:55:30 +0000

Both these sets of results are with the I/O calls removed. The first results are non loop, the second are with the loop:

anton@anton-laptop classes $ time java The_proper_half 4000

real 0m0.292s
user 0m0.384s
sys 0m0.028s
anton@anton-laptop classes $ time java Half_of_a_half 4000

real 0m21.830s
user 0m22.169s
sys 0m0.108s

Comment on Half a half: Part 2 by Liam McBrien

Liam McBrien — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 13:07:25 +0000

I’d be interested to see how the loop version runs without the System.out calls. I’ll bet it makes a significant difference!