Re: [SPAM] Re: XFS, EXT3 or some other?
On Thursday 22 June 2006 00:23, Gabor Gombas wrote: On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 09:58:47AM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: Of course it is quite likely reiserfs has gotten more stable in the couple of years since I stopped using it. According to what I read here and there. reiserfs3 stabilized after Hans Reiser had abandoned it and Chris Mason from SuSE took over maintainership. AFAIR it was Chris Mason who implemented ordered mode for reiser3, and it was Hans Reiser who opposed Chris' work saying it would keep people using reiser3 instead of testing/developing reiser4 (AFAIK at that time reiser4 was not even near being usable). So right now reiser3 should be stable and is backed by a big distro (SuSE), while reiser4 is still far from being integrated into the vanilla kernel and thus should be treated with some care. On the other hand reiser4 has some really new concepts so if someone likes to experiment, reiser4 is a good opportunity. Out of SuSe - which I do not know - may I ask about debian etch (32 and 64): reiser3, reiser4, or even some other reiser#? Just because I took that, as reiserfs, for good (and I am long using it at 32bit without problems; now also at 64bit). Presently my problems are not there; they are about putting mpqc at work with difficult molecules: so far - despite my initial enthusiasm - it has failed badly. thanks francesco pietra Gabor -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [SPAM] Re: XFS, EXT3 or some other?
On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 06:03:09AM +0200, Francesco Pietra wrote: Out of SuSe - which I do not know - may I ask about debian etch (32 and 64): reiser3, reiser4, or even some other reiser#? Just because I took that, as reiserfs, for good (and I am long using it at 32bit without problems; now also at 64bit). Presently my problems are not there; they are about putting mpqc at work with difficult molecules: so far - despite my initial enthusiasm - it has failed badly. So what kind of problems is mpqc giving you? I know nothing about quantum chemistry, but I am pretty good at fixing software. :) Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [SPAM] Re: XFS, EXT3 or some other?
On Thursday 22 June 2006 14:46, Lennart Sorensen wrote: On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 06:03:09AM +0200, Francesco Pietra wrote: Out of SuSe - which I do not know - may I ask about debian etch (32 and 64): reiser3, reiser4, or even some other reiser#? Just because I took that, as reiserfs, for good (and I am long using it at 32bit without problems; now also at 64bit). Presently my problems are not there; they are about putting mpqc at work with difficult molecules: so far - despite my initial enthusiasm - it has failed badly. So what kind of problems is mpqc giving you? I know nothing about quantum chemistry, but I am pretty good at fixing software. :) Hi Lennart: This is a most welcome invitation. Below is pasted a message that I addressed this morning (8.38 UTC) to the mpqc community. As such, it could only trigger response from experts in mpqc. However, to let you investigating the matter, I could send you files of successful and unsuccessful computations. The version of mpqc is just the one currently on debian etch amd64. I don't know if it is a problem of software. It may well be that I am putting mpqc to work the wrong way. In particular, I do not undestand whether the flexibility of the molecule poses problems to the software, stopping it under certain conditions. I do not know how exactly mpcq works, the manual is detailed as to commands but I have not found a description of how it works. Perhaps, to understand fully, one should look at the source. But, as an object oriented program, it must be a hard way. I must also add that what I am trying to do is putting quantum calculation on the very hard way; I wonder whether other dare so. Not evident from the publications. The problems I am investigating are rather for molecular mechanics, and I do so. But molecular mechanics tells nothing about most properties of the molecule, except the shape and relative energies of conformers. What will never finish to surprise me is that tout le monde - or about so - does such computations with a commercial software, released (at a very high price) for commercial Linux under the understanding that installation of Linux must be that of the CD, no variations. Sic. It surprises me because I can not figure how users can understand what they are doing with such inmperscrutable packages. At any event, these computations end on the most respectable chemical journals. Tell me what you want. cheers francesco __ Although this may well be a premature ask for help, it might result in suggesting me a general approach. mpqc 2.3.0 runs correctly (amd64 debian etch, parallel mode with four nodes, dual opteron) for simple molecules, B3LYP simple input, as given in the manual with water.in. For example, the energy difference between the two ax and eq conformers of methylcyclohexane (input from molecular-mechanics minimized structures) is evaluated 1.8 kcal/mol, in accordance with the experimental value. In both cases the calculation reached convergence extremely rapidly and the energy was furnished as Molecular Energy. With molecules of the size C22H25NO6 involving benzene ring, unsaturated conjugated ring and helicity problems, so far I was unable to reach convergence. Either one of the two most stable conformers used for input with the water template (basis set 3-21G* or higher) with coordinates furnished as described above for the methylcyclohexanes, was not brought to conclusion. In most instances the calculation hangs after a few cycles of iterations and the prompt is not furnished; I can examine from the *.out file each molecule for each iteration set and found it correct, with all atoms - including hydrogens - where they should be. Also, the general conformation was not much changed, except for minor details. In another instance the above calculations went farther (about four hours), for some twenty cycles of iteration and it did not hang: the prompt was furnished. However, no Molecular Energy was furnished, only scf energy and it was clearly stated that convergence was not reached. Comparing scf energy, from input as bove for the two most stable conformers, resulted in a far too large energy difference between them (5 kcal/mol; absurd because I can see both them by NMR at r.t.). I was unable to tell the story in fewer words. I do not expect anything easy for complex systems. Before putting the hands further on files I am trying to figure out a plan how to move. Thanks for your kind attention. francesco pietra - Len Sorensen
Re: [SPAM] Re: XFS, EXT3 or some other?
Hi, I really apreciate to know about how far de free software is working on but I suposse this thread has changed from topic and goes beyond the limit of out of Topic in this list... I suggest Fracesco don't talk in terms of your expertise because Lennart is not a chemical... You need to provide instruccion ans set of test to improve the software... i.e. if mpqc is giving you good results a 32 bits and not a 64 then the problem is at hand... or if you have the correct progression of results this could be fixed... you need to expose the rules and not the chemestry... Good luck. On 6/22/06, Francesco Pietra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 22 June 2006 14:46, Lennart Sorensen wrote: On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 06:03:09AM +0200, Francesco Pietra wrote: Out of SuSe - which I do not know - may I ask about debian etch (32 and 64): reiser3, reiser4, or even some other reiser#? Just because I took that, as reiserfs, for good (and I am long using it at 32bit without problems; now also at 64bit). Presently my problems are not there; they are about putting mpqc at work with difficult molecules: so far - despite my initial enthusiasm - it has failed badly. So what kind of problems is mpqc giving you?I know nothing about quantum chemistry, but I am pretty good at fixing software. :) Hi Lennart:This is a most welcome invitation.Below is pasted a message that I addressed this morning(8.38 UTC) to thempqc community. As such, it could only trigger response from experts in mpqc.However, to let you investigating the matter, I could send you files of successful and unsuccessful computations. The version of mpqc is just the onecurrently on debian etch amd64.I don't know if it is a problem of software. It may well be that I am puttingmpqc to work the wrong way. In particular, I do not undestand whether the flexibility of the molecule poses problems to the software, stopping it undercertain conditions. I do not know how exactly mpcq works, the manual isdetailed as to commands but I have not found a description of how it works. Perhaps, to understand fully, one should look at the source. But, as anobject oriented program, it must be a hard way. I must also add that what Iam trying to do is putting quantum calculation on the very hard way; I wonder whether other dare so. Not evident from the publications. The problems I aminvestigating are rather for molecular mechanics, and I do so. But molecularmechanics tells nothing about most properties of the molecule, except the shape and relative energies of conformers.What will never finish to surprise me is that tout le monde - or about so -does such computations with a commercial software, released (at a very highprice) for commercial Linux under the understanding that installation of Linux must be that of the CD, no variations. Sic. It surprises me because Ican not figure how users can understand what they are doing with suchinmperscrutable packages. At any event, these computations end on the most respectable chemical journals.Tell me what you want.cheersfrancesco__Although this may well be a premature ask for help, it might result insuggesting me a general approach. mpqc 2.3.0 runs correctly (amd64 debian etch, parallel mode with four nodes,dual opteron) for simple molecules, B3LYP simple input, as given in themanual with water.in. For example, the energy difference between the two ax and eq conformers of methylcyclohexane (input from molecular-mechanicsminimized structures) is evaluated 1.8 kcal/mol, in accordance with theexperimental value. In both cases the calculation reached convergence extremely rapidly and the energy was furnished as Molecular Energy.With molecules of the size C22H25NO6 involving benzene ring, unsaturatedconjugated ring and helicity problems, so far I was unable to reach convergence. Either one of the two most stable conformers used for input withthe water template (basis set 3-21G* or higher) with coordinates furnished asdescribed above for the methylcyclohexanes, was not brought to conclusion. In most instances the calculation hangs after a few cycles of iterations and theprompt is not furnished; I can examine from the *.out file each moleculefor each iteration set and found it correct, with all atoms - including hydrogens - where they should be. Also, the general conformation was not muchchanged, except for minor details.In another instance the above calculations went farther (about four hours),for some twenty cycles of iteration and it did not hang: the prompt was furnished. However, no Molecular Energy was furnished, only scf energy andit was clearly stated that convergence was not reached. Comparing scf energy,from input as bove for the two most stable conformers, resulted in a far too large energy difference between them (5 kcal/mol; absurd because I can seeboth them by NMR at r.t.).I was unable to tell the story in fewer words. I do not expect anything easyfor complex systems. Before putting the hands further on files I am
Re: [SPAM] Re: XFS, EXT3 or some other?
On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 02:23:22PM +0200, Francesco Pietra wrote: Hi Lennart: This is a most welcome invitation. Below is pasted a message that I addressed this morning (8.38 UTC) to the mpqc community. As such, it could only trigger response from experts in mpqc. However, to let you investigating the matter, I could send you files of successful and unsuccessful computations. The version of mpqc is just the one currently on debian etch amd64. I don't know if it is a problem of software. It may well be that I am putting mpqc to work the wrong way. In particular, I do not undestand whether the flexibility of the molecule poses problems to the software, stopping it under certain conditions. I do not know how exactly mpcq works, the manual is detailed as to commands but I have not found a description of how it works. Perhaps, to understand fully, one should look at the source. But, as an object oriented program, it must be a hard way. I must also add that what I am trying to do is putting quantum calculation on the very hard way; I wonder whether other dare so. Not evident from the publications. The problems I am investigating are rather for molecular mechanics, and I do so. But molecular mechanics tells nothing about most properties of the molecule, except the shape and relative energies of conformers. What will never finish to surprise me is that tout le monde - or about so - does such computations with a commercial software, released (at a very high price) for commercial Linux under the understanding that installation of Linux must be that of the CD, no variations. Sic. It surprises me because I can not figure how users can understand what they are doing with such inmperscrutable packages. At any event, these computations end on the most respectable chemical journals. Tell me what you want. cheers francesco __ Although this may well be a premature ask for help, it might result in suggesting me a general approach. mpqc 2.3.0 runs correctly (amd64 debian etch, parallel mode with four nodes, dual opteron) for simple molecules, B3LYP simple input, as given in the manual with water.in. For example, the energy difference between the two ax and eq conformers of methylcyclohexane (input from molecular-mechanics minimized structures) is evaluated 1.8 kcal/mol, in accordance with the experimental value. In both cases the calculation reached convergence extremely rapidly and the energy was furnished as Molecular Energy. With molecules of the size C22H25NO6 involving benzene ring, unsaturated conjugated ring and helicity problems, so far I was unable to reach convergence. Either one of the two most stable conformers used for input with the water template (basis set 3-21G* or higher) with coordinates furnished as described above for the methylcyclohexanes, was not brought to conclusion. In most instances the calculation hangs after a few cycles of iterations and the prompt is not furnished; I can examine from the *.out file each ?molecule for each iteration set and found it correct, with all atoms - including hydrogens - where they should be. Also, the general conformation was not much changed, except for minor details. In another instance the above calculations went farther (about four hours), for some twenty cycles of iteration and it did not hang: the prompt was furnished. However, no Molecular Energy was furnished, only scf energy and it was clearly stated that convergence was not reached. Comparing scf energy, from input as bove for the two most stable conformers, resulted in a far too large energy difference between them (5 kcal/mol; absurd because I can see both them by NMR at r.t.). I was unable to tell the story in fewer words. I do not expect anything easy for complex systems. Before putting the hands further on files I am trying to figure out a plan how to move. Thanks for your kind attention. Well there is a version 2.3.1 which is supposed to contain some bug fixes. I wonder if there is any chance that one of the fixed bugs is what is causing your problem. The mpqc changelog has this: 2006-03-22: MPQC-2.3.1 * MCSearch added for cubic interpolation during quasi-Newton line searches. * Added KMLYP method. * Updated libtool to version 1.5.22. * SumDenFunctional returns correct HF exchange coefficient when using nested ACM functionals. This could change the results from certain, uncommon inputs. * Other minor bug fixes, enhancements, and * documentation improvements. Debian doesn't have 2.3.1 built yet, but it wouldn't be hard to do. I can try and build a debian package of 2.3.1 if you want to try that. Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [SPAM] Re: XFS, EXT3 or some other?
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 01:52:20PM -0800, Fielder George Dowding wrote: Thank you, Tom, for the comparison. I have used ext3 but became disenchanted when I found it liked to do an old ext2 fsck on boot every so often according to some magic number. I tried both xfs and jfs without much joy. At the time (perhaps two years ago now) grub would not boot with xfs as the boot partition file format. I learned that I could use reiserfs as the boot partition file format if I made the partition sufficiently large, which is not a problem with today's hard drives. I can't remember why jfs gave little joy. These days I use reiserfs with much joy. I don't understand the problem that others are having with it. My systems are lightly loaded workstations and servers. I do not use any data base systems. That is going to change as soon as I can figure out how to use MySQL and PostgreSQL. The time between fsck's is not magic in ext3. it is right in the information you get from tune2fs, and adjustable with the same tool (including turning them off entirely). As for reiserfs, well I have been burned by its design in the past, and don't trust it anymore. I recently read that apparently they now support ordered writes, which would probably elliminate the cause of the data loss I had from it. Certainly ext3 uses ordered writes by default, and I haven't lost data to it yet. I still think any FS that doesn't have a reliable safe recovery tool isn't worth using. So reiserfs is out for me. Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [SPAM] Re: XFS, EXT3 or some other?
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 14:53, Lennart Sorensen wrote: On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 01:52:20PM -0800, Fielder George Dowding wrote: Thank you, Tom, for the comparison. I have used ext3 but became disenchanted when I found it liked to do an old ext2 fsck on boot every so often according to some magic number. I tried both xfs and jfs without much joy. At the time (perhaps two years ago now) grub would not boot with xfs as the boot partition file format. I learned that I could use reiserfs as the boot partition file format if I made the partition sufficiently large, which is not a problem with today's hard drives. I can't remember why jfs gave little joy. These days I use reiserfs with much joy. I don't understand the problem that others are having with it. My systems are lightly loaded workstations and servers. I do not use any data base systems. That is going to change as soon as I can figure out how to use MySQL and PostgreSQL. The time between fsck's is not magic in ext3. it is right in the information you get from tune2fs, and adjustable with the same tool (including turning them off entirely). As for reiserfs, well I have been burned by its design in the past, and don't trust it anymore. I recently read that apparently they now support ordered writes, which would probably elliminate the cause of the data loss I had from it. Certainly ext3 uses ordered writes by default, and I haven't lost data to it yet. I still think any FS that doesn't have a reliable safe recovery tool isn't worth using. So reiserfs is out for me. Sad to read about that, after having reiserfs as filesystem on all my partitions (except precious data - my papers and my database - that I extra-save on a 25 years old external scsi HD as vfat). I understand that going back means doing everything, except partitions, ex novo. Now that I have even set up the measurement of temperatures. Is tout le monde convinced? cheers francesco Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [SPAM] Re: XFS, EXT3 or some other?
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006, Lennart Sorensen wrote: Of course it is quite likely reiserfs has gotten more stable in the couple of years since I stopped using it. I just don't think it has any features that make me interested in trying it again. Liek really, what features does reiserfs have that I could possibly want that ext3 doesn't have? Well, in Francesco's case, since he apparently already set up everything with reiserfs, you should ask the opposite question: what does ext3 offer that he doesn't have with the _current_ version of reiserfs? I haven't got such a huge experience, but I had a few hardware failures on disks with reiserfs, relatively recently, and the recovery tools performed quite well: I only lost those data which had something to do with the damaged blocks, all the rest was salvaged. So, in my personal book, the overwhelmingly large majority of data losses were invariably due to hardware failures, and I did not see any correlation between data losses and using reiserfs vs. ext3. My recent personal statistics count ~10 broken hard disks over many computers in the past 2 years. My only personal gripe with reiserfs is that it takes a long time to mount large filesystems, but I do not mount/umount big filesystems so frequently. If I were in Francesco's shoes, unless I had other reasons for redoing everything, I would keep the working filesystem, be it reiserfs or ext3, and start using his new system for quantum chemistry, which I understand is what he wants to get to... Just my 2¢... Giacomo -- _ Giacomo Mulas [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ OSSERVATORIO ASTRONOMICO DI CAGLIARI Str. 54, Loc. Poggio dei Pini * 09012 Capoterra (CA) Tel. (OAC): +39 070 71180 248 Fax : +39 070 71180 222 Tel. (UNICA): +39 070 675 4916 _ When the storms are raging around you, stay right where you are (Freddy Mercury) _ -- Il messaggio e' stato analizzato alla ricerca di virus o contenuti pericolosi da MailScanner, ed e' risultato non infetto.
Re: [SPAM] Re: XFS, EXT3 or some other?
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 16:19, Giacomo Mulas wrote: On Wed, 21 Jun 2006, Lennart Sorensen wrote: Of course it is quite likely reiserfs has gotten more stable in the couple of years since I stopped using it. I just don't think it has any features that make me interested in trying it again. Liek really, what features does reiserfs have that I could possibly want that ext3 doesn't have? Well, in Francesco's case, since he apparently already set up everything with reiserfs, you should ask the opposite question: what does ext3 offer that he doesn't have with the _current_ version of reiserfs? I haven't got such a huge experience, but I had a few hardware failures on disks with reiserfs, relatively recently, and the recovery tools performed quite well: I only lost those data which had something to do with the damaged blocks, all the rest was salvaged. So, in my personal book, the overwhelmingly large majority of data losses were invariably due to hardware failures, and I did not see any correlation between data losses and using reiserfs vs. ext3. My recent personal statistics count ~10 broken hard disks over many computers in the past 2 years. My only personal gripe with reiserfs is that it takes a long time to mount large filesystems, but I do not mount/umount big filesystems so frequently. If I were in Francesco's shoes, unless I had other reasons for redoing everything, I would keep the working filesystem, be it reiserfs or ext3, and start using his new system for quantum chemistry, which I understand is what he wants to get to... I did that in the last couple of days. With mpqc set for the four nodes, a large molecule at BFT with a 485 base set, was done in four hours vs 1 month with my previous non-parallel computing package. Not bad. francesco Just my 2¢... Giacomo -- _ Giacomo Mulas [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ OSSERVATORIO ASTRONOMICO DI CAGLIARI Str. 54, Loc. Poggio dei Pini * 09012 Capoterra (CA) Tel. (OAC): +39 070 71180 248 Fax : +39 070 71180 222 Tel. (UNICA): +39 070 675 4916 _ When the storms are raging around you, stay right where you are (Freddy Mercury) _
Re: [SPAM] Re: XFS, EXT3 or some other?
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 01:52:20PM -0800, Fielder George Dowding wrote: Thank you, Tom, for the comparison. I have used ext3 but became disenchanted when I found it liked to do an old ext2 fsck on boot every so often according to some magic number. I tried both xfs and jfs tune2fs lets you change that. There's two values, one for maximum mount count (and current mount count), and the max time between fsck. -- Tom Vier [EMAIL PROTECTED] DSA Key ID 0x15741ECE -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [SPAM] Re: XFS, EXT3 or some other?
On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 04:19:11PM +0200, Giacomo Mulas wrote: in the past 2 years. My only personal gripe with reiserfs is that it takes a long time to mount large filesystems, but I do not mount/umount big filesystems so frequently. If I were in Francesco's shoes, unless I had It loads all the bitmaps on mount. There's a patch to load them on demand (like other fs'es do), but it hasn't been extensively tested. Search the reiserfs list and you should find it. I haven't tried it. reiser4 has a dont_load_bitmaps mount option (which personally, i think should be the default - it's always been that way for other fs'es). -- Tom Vier [EMAIL PROTECTED] DSA Key ID 0x15741ECE -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [SPAM] Re: XFS, EXT3 or some other?
On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 09:58:47AM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: Of course it is quite likely reiserfs has gotten more stable in the couple of years since I stopped using it. According to what I read here and there. reiserfs3 stabilized after Hans Reiser had abandoned it and Chris Mason from SuSE took over maintainership. AFAIR it was Chris Mason who implemented ordered mode for reiser3, and it was Hans Reiser who opposed Chris' work saying it would keep people using reiser3 instead of testing/developing reiser4 (AFAIK at that time reiser4 was not even near being usable). So right now reiser3 should be stable and is backed by a big distro (SuSE), while reiser4 is still far from being integrated into the vanilla kernel and thus should be treated with some care. On the other hand reiser4 has some really new concepts so if someone likes to experiment, reiser4 is a good opportunity. Gabor -- - MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute Hungarian Academy of Sciences - -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [SPAM] Re: XFS, EXT3 or some other?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tom Vier wrote: This is the second fs thread lately, but all add my thoughts here, too. 8) reiserfs: I've used for years and only had one minor problem (fsck thought there was a hash problem when there wasn't). I've used it on x86, amd64, sparc64, alpha, and ppc32. + dynamic inodes + has data=ordered + supports write barriers + much faster than ext3 - slower than xfs and jfs in some cases ext3: I've used on x86, amd64, sparc64, and ppc32. No problems, but reiserfs was stable before ext3 was! + compatability + has data=ordered + write barriers + data=journalled (rarely useful, tho) - slow! - fixed inode tables (tho, that makes fsck more reliable) jfs: I've only tried on x86. + dynamic inodes + nointegrity option speeds up restoring from backup + lower cpu usage - high latency than xfs - doesn't support write barriers - no order constraints xfs: Only tried on x86. + dynamic inodes + delayed allocation + write barriers + lower latency than jfs - no order constraints - high cpu usage Thank you, Tom, for the comparison. I have used ext3 but became disenchanted when I found it liked to do an old ext2 fsck on boot every so often according to some magic number. I tried both xfs and jfs without much joy. At the time (perhaps two years ago now) grub would not boot with xfs as the boot partition file format. I learned that I could use reiserfs as the boot partition file format if I made the partition sufficiently large, which is not a problem with today's hard drives. I can't remember why jfs gave little joy. These days I use reiserfs with much joy. I don't understand the problem that others are having with it. My systems are lightly loaded workstations and servers. I do not use any data base systems. That is going to change as soon as I can figure out how to use MySQL and PostgreSQL. - -- Fielder George Dowding, Chief Iceworm.^. Debian/GNU Linux dba Iceworm Enterprises, Anchorage, Alaska /v\ etch Testing Since 1976 - Over 30 Years of Service. /( )\ User Number 269482 ^^-^^ irad 301256 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEmG4R2kl99FX0AIkRAvuZAJ9kqhCt4Csk5dCAQNjh8RnBvxmu8gCeOIVj Pf6cSfX2+eGQJZIuZKL3CYU= =fO5L -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
