From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 6 16:52:07 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEBDC16A559; Thu, 6 Jul 2006 16:52:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from paulfm@me.umn.edu) Received: from mail.enet.umn.edu (mail.enet.umn.edu [128.101.142.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B22E43D4C; Thu, 6 Jul 2006 16:52:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from paulfm@me.umn.edu) Received: from [172.16.27.5] (topper.enet.umn.edu [172.16.27.5]) by mail.enet.umn.edu (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id k66Gq68J045829 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Jul 2006 11:52:06 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from paulfm@me.umn.edu) X-Authentication-Warning: mail.enet.umn.edu: Host topper.enet.umn.edu [172.16.27.5] claimed to be [172.16.27.5] Message-ID: <44AD3FB5.2090406@me.umn.edu> Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 11:52:05 -0500 From: Paul FM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060516 SeaMonkey/1.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Maxim Konovalov References: <200606091405.k59E5N3D035370@freefall.freebsd.org> <4489BC56.8040409@me.umn.edu> In-Reply-To: <4489BC56.8040409@me.umn.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/98625: ypserv ignores the -n option (it always acts like -n has been specified) X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:52:07 -0000 Ok, we have put this patch into production. No problems to report (so far). I should note that the patch itself, reduced the cpu load of ypserv - recompiling without tcp-wrappers reduced it even more. It went from 20% cpu (nominal), down to 1.95% cpu (nominal). And of course, all the clients are faster as well (and so are nis lookups). PaulFM wrote: > After looking at it, I see what you REALLY changed. One left > parenthesis was in the wrong place. > > I think that might be a fix and I will test it (it may take a week or so > before I answer back). > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- The views and opinions expressed above are strictly those of the author(s). The content of this message has not been reviewed nor approved by any entity whatsoever. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul F. Markfort Info/Web: http://www.menet.umn.edu/~paulfm ---------------------------------------------------------------------