switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: First ... 101 102 103 104 [105] 106 107 108 109 ... Last
[#] Tue Jul 29 2014 08:34:44 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Perhaps I should point out that the two functions I needed out of the updated zlib was 1. compressBound, which simply calculates an estimate of how much space is needed for the compression, and 2. ceil, which is used by compressBound for its calculation, is normally included in 'math', but for some peculiar reason I can't link that library into the compiler.

Neither of these functions are revolutionary or terribly difficult to implement.
If I needed 10 functions, some of which involved some relatively intricate programming that would be unwise of me to attempt, yeah, I would suffer the setup dependency. But for the price of creating two very simple functions, avoiding a setup dependency seems like the better way to go.

At least, that's my reasoning.

[#] Tue Jul 29 2014 09:18:46 EDT from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

since docker (LXC) seems to be hot tech, see this one:

FIG seems to be a really nice tool:

[#] Tue Jul 29 2014 10:24:42 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

That looks rather useful... isolated dev environments in a flash.

[#] Tue Jul 29 2014 10:29:20 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Fucking hell... trying to read anything about Docker is like reading a web site full of nothing but buzzwords.

I feel like I'm listening to Weird Al's "Mission Statement" tune.

I assume eventually I'll read something that actually has some real meat to it, but honestly, I'm incredibly turned off by all this buzzword shit.

[#] Tue Jul 29 2014 11:18:56 EDT from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

thats because of its 95% LXC, some added guts, and LOTS of marketing.

[#] Tue Jul 29 2014 11:25:34 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Gah... fucking marketing...

The usual enmity between engineering and marketing continues.

[#] Tue Jul 29 2014 11:28:51 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Another awful thing... Valhalla Linux doesn't have a concept of a steady clock within it.

The only clocks I can find for this is a clock that matches the 'real time', and is subject to the usual crap when you adjust the time, and process/thread CPU clocks, which are not exactly steady. There is no way that I can see right now that you can get a kind of clock that simply iterates over a steady rate of time, monotonically.

Did people writing for Valhalla wind up with obscure and weird problems when people changed their time?

[#] Tue Jul 29 2014 11:29:19 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

(Sorry, I wrote 'Valhalla Linux', which is stupid... RedHat Valhalla is what I mean).

[#] Tue Jul 29 2014 12:48:57 EDT from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

you're supposed to run ntpclient in cron or such.

VM-clocs are even less predictable then usual system clocks.

Ticks are supposed to be somewhat predictable..

[#] Tue Jul 29 2014 12:51:23 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

what you're looking for might be /proc/loadavg, which is used by the "uptime" command...

[#] Tue Jul 29 2014 12:52:33 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

/proc/uptime ooks like the the same thing, higher resolution?

[#] Tue Jul 29 2014 13:07:05 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

(I got this by running "strace" on the /usr/bin/uptime. the program queries both /proc/loadavg and /proc/uptime (oops) so the latter is the one that's relevant.

these have been around for a while, so they should work on rh6.2 even.

[#] Tue Jul 29 2014 13:15:37 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Thanks for the information!

Here's something else to add to it:

If I'm reading this correctly, back then, people tried to ensure that time marched forward by relying upon the NTP client to adjust the system clock in monotonic ways. So, you'd never change the system clock yourself... you would let NTP do it for you, and it would always adjust the clock in a fashion that is monotonic in nature.

Obviously, folks must have figured out how bad this idea was, as we now have CLOCK_MONOTONIC available for clocks in current kernels, but I guess we had some relatively naive notions about time back then.

Sooo, at least philosophically, I should be able to use the realtime clock as if it were the steady clock, and avoid adjusting the time/date on the machine, just as I guess they intended back in the day.

I have to figure out how to coerce my code to do this... it *really* wants CLOCK_MONOTONIC or the like. I tried #defining it to CLOCK_REALTIME and now I have a linking error. But I'm sure I can get past that with a little evil.

[#] Tue Jul 29 2014 13:21:11 EDT from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

nm, strings & grep to the hilts!

[#] Tue Jul 29 2014 14:12:58 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Well, there is *One* *Simple* *Trick* that you can do to ensure monotonicity in userland ;) ;) ;)

[#] Tue Jul 29 2014 14:12:54 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Heh... I worked around it by forcing the underlying boost::steady_clock class to use CLOCK_REALTIME instead of CLOCK_MONOTONIC (or variations). It isn't perfect, but it'll have to do since the OS doesn't have a proper monotonic clock.

If I felt plucky, I could maybe build one in some bizarre fashion using the boost::steady_clock interface but writing the underlying code that calls the usual OS APIs to do something with /proc/utime instead... if I can figure out how to make a timer that doesn't busy-wait within this context.

But I think for how I'm doing everything, this may be good enough. I'll know more when we get into testing.

[#] Tue Jul 29 2014 14:17:22 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

(oh, and since this kind of stuff gets picked up by Google now, here's some additional details, in case someone else wants to do this).

If you find yourself in the ridiculous position of having to write code to work on a version of Linux using the 2.14 kernel, after figuring out how to build the GCC 4.83 compiler (not something I'll bother with here... just know that it's doable), you'll need the following in one of your .cpp files:

#if defined(__linux__)
#include <time.h>
#pragma message "This OS doesn't support a steady clock. YMMV."
#include <boost/chrono/detail/inlined/chrono.hpp>

[#] Tue Jul 29 2014 14:19:46 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Oh, god, that is stupid.

There's another guard... #if !defined(CLOCK_MONOTONIC), that I missed.

[#] Tue Jul 29 2014 15:06:25 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Oh, I missed that... 'one simple trick' to ensure monotonicity in userland... RTOS I assume.

[#] Tue Jul 29 2014 15:08:32 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I was thinking of something a little more subtle, but still quite silly.

Go to page: First ... 101 102 103 104 [105] 106 107 108 109 ... Last