On Apr 9, 2011, at 8:22 AM, Mathieu Baudier wrote:
>>> Just one thing: THANK YOU ALL!!!
>
> Thanks a lot!
> (especially for focusing on 5.6 before 6.0)
+1
--
Ryan Ordway E-mail: rord...@oregonstate.edu
Unix Systems Administrator
On Apr 4, 2011, at 11:26 AM, David Brian Chait wrote:
>> If Karanbir says 3 weeks it takes 3 months. (as well as with CentOS 5.6)
>
> Well that and we have been a few days away from 5.6 for well over a few
> months now...
I didn't realize it was already CentOS bashing day... oh, it's just Monda
down
the other automatically takes over its IP address(es) and services. If you have
control over your own DNS you can manage your zone's Time To Live so that
records are less aggressively cached, etc.
--
Ryan Ordway E-mail: rord...@oregonstate.edu
Unix Systems Adminis
obvious upstream, unless you are paying close attention to every
individual Open Source project that upstream draws from... in which case
perhaps you could use some of that time contributing to CentOS. Problem solved.
--
Ryan Ordway E-mail: rord...@oregonstate.edu
Unix Sy
On Jan 9, 2008, at 2:04 PM, Ryan Ordway wrote:
On Jan 9, 2008, at 12:27 PM, Jack Bailey wrote:
Ryan Ordway wrote:
I had been running CentOS 5 happily on my Sun Fire X4200 M2 systems,
then I upgraded the BIOS and iLOM firmware. Now I'm running into
what
seems to be a fairly common pr
On Jan 9, 2008, at 12:27 PM, Jack Bailey wrote:
Ryan Ordway wrote:
I had been running CentOS 5 happily on my Sun Fire X4200 M2 systems,
then I upgraded the BIOS and iLOM firmware. Now I'm running into what
seems to be a fairly common problem with newer motherboards. I cannot
boot unless
his has been fixed in the mainline kernel, and if
so if this can be integrated into the CentOS 5.1 kernel (namely the
CentOS Plus kernel)?
Thanks!
Ryan
--
Ryan Ordway E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unix Systems Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OSU Libra
On Dec 11, 2007, at 2:44 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Ryan Ordway wrote:
Specifically, what makes you say it is a 5.1 only feature? What
does 5.1
give you that makes it easier than 5.0?
specifically - rbr
Ahh, true.
( i think were just tryign to use mysql like too much of a real
r A's
view of the database and the master B's view. You lose any changes to
the data on master B. It would be nice to be able to merge any changes
from B that hadn't made their way to master A yet. At that point
you're examining binlogs.
Ryan
--
Ryan Ordway
ne other person there had it running in
production. But, while it's not officially supported they do their
best to make it work.
Specifically, what makes you say it is a 5.1 only feature? What does
5.1 give you that makes it easier than 5.0?
Ryan
--
Ryan Ordway
10 matches
Mail list logo
