On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 9:54 PM, MHR wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
>>
>> A few days ago, I think someone mentioned that they were doing
>> something at RPMForge. I'm guessing this is part of it -- this is is
>> an old Pentium III that I've got CentOS 4.7 on, and I tr
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
>
> A few days ago, I think someone mentioned that they were doing
> something at RPMForge. I'm guessing this is part of it -- this is is
> an old Pentium III that I've got CentOS 4.7 on, and I tried to do an
> update (haven't turned it on in a c
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 9:12 PM, MHR wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
>> I should also mention that I added (a few days ago) the M Harris
>> repository so that I could install Firefox 3.5.
>>
>
> I ran an update for my rpmforge stuff this morning and saw the same
> thin
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
> I should also mention that I added (a few days ago) the M Harris
> repository so that I could install Firefox 3.5.
>
I ran an update for my rpmforge stuff this morning and saw the same
thing. Anyone here have a clue? I'm gonna ask on the rpm
I should also mention that I added (a few days ago) the M Harris
repository so that I could install Firefox 3.5.
--
RonB -- Using CentOS 5.3
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I come to you "hat in hand" again. For the first time in a long while
I got a "Update Notification" at the bottom of my screen -- so I
decided to click on it and run the update. Unfortunately I got a
couple dependency errors and am not sure how to solve them. (Not even
sure why I got them.)
They a
> You mentioned that the data can be retrieved from somewhere else. Is
> some part of this filename a unique key?
The real key is up to 1023 chracters long and it's unique, but I have to trim
to 256 charactes, by this way is not unique unless I add the hash.
>Do you have to track this
> relati
o wrote:
>> I don't think you've explained the constraint that would make you use
>> mysql or not.
>
> My original idea was using the just the hash as filename, by this way I could
> have a direct access. But the customer rejected this and requested to have
> part of the
According to my tests the average size per file is around 15KB (although there
are files from 1Kb to 150KB).
_
Explore the seven wonders of the world
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=7+wonders+world&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE
2009/7/10, Filipe Brandenburger :
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 16:21, Alexander
> Georgiev wrote:
>> I would use either only a database, or only the file system. To me -
>> using them both is a violation of KISS.
>
> I disagree with your general statement.
>
> Storing content that is appropriate for f
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 16:21, Alexander
Georgiev wrote:
> I would use either only a database, or only the file system. To me -
> using them both is a violation of KISS.
I disagree with your general statement.
Storing content that is appropriate for files (e.g., pictures) as
BLOBs in an SQL datab
2009/7/10, o :
>
> Ok, I coudl use mysql, but think we have around 15M entries and I would have
> to add to each a file from 1KB to 150KB, in total the files size can be
> around 200GB. How will be the performance of this in mysql?
>
in the worst case - 150kb for a 150
Ok, I coudl use mysql, but think we have around 15M entries and I would have to
add to each a file from 1KB to 150KB, in total the files size can be around
200GB. How will be the performance of this in mysql?
_
Discover the new Win
>
> My original idea was using the just the hash as filename, by this way I
> could have a direct access. But the customer rejected this and requested to
> have part of the long file name (from 11 to 1023 characters). As linux only
> allows 256 characters in the path and I could get duplicates with
>I don't think you've explained the constraint that would make you use
> mysql or not.
My original idea was using the just the hash as filename, by this way I could
have a direct access. But the customer rejected this and requested to have part
of the long file name (from 11 to 1023 characters)
Hi,
I'm looking for a recent version of rsyslog. The yum repositories only show
me a version that is 2.0.6. According to the www.rsyslog.com site, they are
up to version 5 (dev), which means that I would think/assume that there
would at least be v3 or v4 available somewhere.
Does anyone know
o wrote:
> Hi, After talking with te customer, I finnaly managed to convince him for
> using the first characters of the hash as directory names.
>
> Now I'm in doubt about the following options:
>
> a) Using directory 4 levels /c/2/a/4/ (200 files per directory) and mys
> >
> > I would like to know what you do about the number of files in a
> > folder, or if that is a concern. I think there is a limitation or a
> > slow down if it gets to big, but what is optimal (if necessary)
>
> > SO what is best for file management and system resources?
> Using hash_index
Hi, After talking with te customer, I finnaly managed to convince him for using
the first characters of the hash as directory names.
Now I'm in doubt about the following options:
a) Using directory 4 levels /c/2/a/4/ (200 files per directory) and mysql with
a hash->filename table, so I can get
"Kwan Lowe" wrote in
message news:b7e478370907092006x5340883n1ec1652fa27b5...@mail.gmail.com...
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Eric B. wrote:
Hi,
I'm not sure if I am posting this in the right place, so if this belongs
more on another list, please let me know.
The 389 lis
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Peter Kjellstrom wrote:
> On Friday 10 July 2009, Rob Kampen wrote:
>> Coert Waagmeester wrote:
> ...
>> > it only allows one NEW connection to ssh per minute.
>> >
>> > That is also a good protection right?
> ...
>> Not really protection - rather a deterrent - it j
On Friday 10 July 2009, Rob Kampen wrote:
> Coert Waagmeester wrote:
...
> > it only allows one NEW connection to ssh per minute.
> >
> > That is also a good protection right?
...
> Not really protection - rather a deterrent - it just makes it slower for
> the script kiddies that try brute force at
On 07/10/2009 02:59 PM, Rainer Duffner wrote:
> Brute-forcing has long-since started to go distributed, fooling fail2ban
> and similar scripts with just 3 or 4 checks per single source-host.
I've never been a big fan of either denyhosts or fail2ban, both of them
are just making it easier for som
Hi folks,
I can't seem to log into my system via
vsftpd. All other services using PAM are fine...Am I missing something simple?
ftp> user
(username) user
331 Please specify the password.
Password:
530 Login incorrect.
# getenforce
Permissive
here is the event in /var/log/audit/audit.log:
type
Rob Kampen schrieb:
> Not really protection - rather a deterrent - it just makes it slower
> for the script kiddies that try brute force attacks - they have to
> pace themselves to one try per minute rather than one or two per
> second. Thus they normally move on to an easier target.
> You can als
Coert Waagmeester wrote:
On Thu, 2009-07-09 at 15:18 -0700, Bill Campbell wrote:
This appeared today on Macworld, an article saying this is
probably a hoax:
http://www.macworld.com/article/141628/2009/07/openssh_securityhoax.html?lsrc=rss_main
Bill
In my iptables setup I have the fol
On Thu, 2009-07-09 at 15:18 -0700, Bill Campbell wrote:
> This appeared today on Macworld, an article saying this is
> probably a hoax:
>
> http://www.macworld.com/article/141628/2009/07/openssh_securityhoax.html?lsrc=rss_main
>
> Bill
In my iptables setup I have the following rule: (excuse the
27 matches
Mail list logo
