On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto > <denisfalqueto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:39 AM, Felipe Contreras >> <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto >>> <denisfalqueto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Felipe Contreras >>>> <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I'm sure in due time systemd will be ready, and will have nice >>>>> advantages, but I doubt that's the case right now. Has anybody looked >>>>> into the CONFIG_HZ issue? I doubt that. >>>> >>>> Arch's stock kernel: >>>> >>>> $ zgrep CONFIG_HZ /proc/config.gz >>>> # CONFIG_HZ_100 is not set >>>> # CONFIG_HZ_250 is not set >>>> CONFIG_HZ_300=y >>>> # CONFIG_HZ_1000 is not set >>>> CONFIG_HZ=300 >>>> >>>> Systemd is working fine enough. A counter example shoud invalidate >>>> your argument that CONFIG_HZ is the culprit. >>> >>> That doesn't prove anything, your machine is not my machine. >> >> And you dare to call for scientific process? Your arguments are >> general and your test universe is your machine? Oh, please. > > When you make a claim such as "this change won't introduce any > regressions" the evidence of "it works in my machine" isn't *proof* of > any kind. If you have worked in any serious project you would know > that (as many changes work on particular machines, and break in > others). And if you know anything of the scientific process you would > also know that "it works in my machine" isn't *proof* of any kind; my > machine detects neutrinos travel faster than light, is that proof of > anything? No. And this goes back to basics of rationality: you can't > prove a negative, so it doesn't matter how many data-points of > something not happening you have, and all you need is a positive > data-point to show that something does indeed exist (or at least it's > as likely as the possibility of that data-point being in fact true). > > I'm not going to explain this again. Either you get it or you don't. This is so stupid that it's not even funny. You said that the problem was having CONFIG_HZ=300 and systemd. I said it is not, because I also have that situation and it works. So, your point is moot. I didn't say you don't have a problem, but just that it may be not related to CONFIG_HZ. I even sent you an article with ways on how to inspect the behaviour of systemd, which was completely ignored. Really, arch-general is not the same as before, and _that_ is the real problem. -- A: Because it obfuscates the reading. Q: Why is top posting so bad? For more information, please read: http://idallen.com/topposting.html ------------------------------------------- Denis A. Altoe Falqueto Linux user #524555 -------------------------------------------
