MHonArc errors

2001-06-20 05:29:53
The following attached messages (respectively 102 and 2620 in a
couple MH folders) cause MHonArc to error ala:

  syntax error at /usr/share/mhonarc/ line 37, near 
  syntax error at /usr/share/mhonarc/ line 40, near ""$disp: ","
  Compilation failed in require at /usr/share/mhonarc/ line 915, 
<FOPEN107> line 16.

I've not researched any further than isolating the offending

  $  mhonarc -v
  MHonArc v2.4.8 (Perl 5.006)
  Copyright (C) 1995-2001  Earl Hood, mhonarc(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com
  MHonArc comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY and MHonArc may be copied only
  under the terms of the GNU General Public License, which may be found in
  the MHonArc distribution.

While it has been a while since I've run these two particular
messages thru MHonArc, MHonArc (at some unknown previous version)
had no problem with them.

Anything else you need?

J C Lawrence                                       claw(_at_)kanga(_dot_)nu
The pressure to survive and rhetoric may make strange bedfellows

--- Begin Message ---
We've got a rack of 10 4-cpu alphas. They load share just fine.
(in fact, they're set up to share across cpu's AND between the ten boxes. 
Imagine running a mud on one of those!)

From:   Chris Gray
Sent:   Wednesday, March 12, 1997 9:23 AM
To:     Multiple Recipients of MUD Design Mailing List
Subject:        Re: Just a bit of musing

In the Sun world, this has never been true. SunOS didn't use SMP's very
well, because when anything needed kernel work, a single global lock kept
everyone else out of the kernel. Even then, there was no CPU reserved for
the kernel. Under the newer Solaris, the locks within the kernel are of
much finer granularity, so several CPUs can be executing kernel code at
the same time. My understanding is that IBM's AIX went through similar
changes (AIX 3.5 didn't support SMP, but AIX 4.1 was a rewrite, and is
much like Solaris on SMP's). I'm not sure about HP's HPUX, but the dual-CPU
machine beside my desk at work doesn't seem to suffer any problems, and
most certainly can have both CPU's busy doing user work.

:It is also my understanding that NT 4.0 uses a different model and
:"load sharing" as you define it above.   I have heard rumors that Digital's
:64-bit Unix
:uses the "load sharing" model.  Does anyone have any info on this?

I'd be surprised if anyone wrote an operating system which reserved a CPU
for the OS itself. However, it *is* MicroSoft being talked about!!! :-/
DEC is pretty good at software, so they should be able to get it right.
We haven't ported our stuff to Alpha's yet, however, so I have no
direct experience with them.

Chris Gray   cg(_at_)ami-cg(_dot_)GraySage(_dot_)Edmonton(_dot_)AB(_dot_)CA


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Greetings all--

I've been doing my best to follow the DevMud thread and have found it to be
quite interesting. Although, I do have a quick question or two. Is it me, or
does it appear to be two distinct discussion being held at the same time?
One about licenses and the other about the VM/modules. I've never done
anything like this before and this is the closest I've come to seeing a mud
being developed from the ground up. Granted things are still being
organized, but I get a 'jumping around' feeling when I'm reading through the
threads. I may be the only one, but is it possible to have an outline posted
about what needs to be accomplished? It would help make things more
appearant in the development process for me as well as allowing me to see
where I might be able to contribute to this. This is all very interesting to
me, kinda like a software engineering project. I've always wanted to
'write-my-own-mud-from-scratch' but was never sure where to start. This at
least gives me a better idea and some kind of direction to follow.

c'est moi-
"Working with morons is so frustrating." B.Lange

<<attachment: winmail.dat>>

--- End Message ---
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>