On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 03:44:06PM +0400, Anthony Pankov wrote:
> My requirements is
> 1. there is no need for SQL
> 2. processes are sharing db file in concurrent mode
> 3. reading/writing = 60%/40%
>
> With BDB
> clause 1 - satisfied
> clause 3 - satisfied (databases of relatively small items th
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 05:14:52AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 03:44:06PM +0400, Anthony Pankov wrote:
> > If concurrency is the only problem then:
> > 1. ?an data corruption be avoided? Or this is impossible?
> > 2. How?
>
> Use Sleepycat/Oracle DB instead? The libc D
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:25:16AM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> Most of the complaints about other DBs is licensing related, but SQLite's
> complaint was also the fact that the past stability record was a bit rocky.
One other thing to watch for in SQLite is the lack of atomicity
in updates. It
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 10:06:21PM +0100, James Mansion wrote:
> Kurt J. Lidl wrote:
>> There are known problems with certain keys corrupting the DB 1.8x
>> series code. In fact, the "release" of the 1.86 was an attempt
>> to solve this problem when the Ker
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 05:20:26AM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2008-May-14 09:50:52 -0400, "Kurt J. Lidl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >One other thing to watch for in SQLite is the lack of atomicity
> >in updates. It's not ACID, just like BDB 1.8x isn&#
On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 07:02:30PM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2008-Aug-06 19:14:51 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > In Solaris 10 the Services Management Facility (SMF) was introduced.
>
> The main purpose of SMF appears to be to drum up business for Sun's
> training courses by radically
On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 05:54:06AM +, Tony Finch wrote:
> >I'm looking up the IP addresses with up to 1500 or so processes each
> >taking a list of addresses and running gethostbyaddr() on them.
>
> That's stupid. Use adns instead.
> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ian/adns/
That's stupid
On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 08:27:06PM -0500, Pedro F Giffuni wrote:
> rfork comes from plan 9 and along with sfork it wasn't part of the
> 4.4BSDlite 2 release, OTOH if both are the same, why aren't we referencing
> it in our syscalls for compatibility with BSDI ?
>
> I can't find a reference to sfo
On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 09:50:35AM -0800, Matt Dillon wrote:
> :70TB is the size of the sum of all files, access or no access.
> :(They still want to maintain accessibility even though the chances are slim.)
>
> This doesn't sound like something you can just throw together with
> off-the-
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 02:01:55PM +, Aled Morris wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> >Even the name (dd) comes from IBM's control language (JSYS?).
>
> I don't disagree, but someone once told me the name came from what
> it does "Convert and Copy a file" - see dd(1) - but "
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 08:19:52PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> With multi-socket systems becoming more prevalent, and the continued
> increase in cores per processors, I thought it would be nice for
> 'make -j' to gain some automation.
>
> Attached is a patch that makes "-j-" be the same as
> "-
On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 06:13:32PM +0100, void wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 07:29:53PM -0700, Mike Smith wrote:
> >
> > If your customer's not _desperate_ for a super-low-cost solution, I'd
> > suggest any of the Intel boards that offer EMP (most of these also offer
> > BIOS-over-serial supp
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 01:41:05AM +0200, Cyrille Lefevre wrote:
> "Clifton Royston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > Can anybody confirm for me that the suid, sgid, and sticky bit are in
> > fact no-ops for FreeBSD on regular non-executable files, as it appears
> > they should be?
>
> ho
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 12:25:45PM -0500, Sam wrote:
> > Sick!
> >
> > Are there actually systems out there that don't have "all-zero" NULL pointers?
> >
> > You have officially shattered my previously held beliefs about the
> > sacredness of memset :(
>
> If there are, I'd be interested to know o
On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 at 04:29:42PM -0800, Dan Strick wrote:
> Does anyone know where the system calls are really defined?
> I followed open() to _open() to __sys_open() which seems
> to be part of something called libc_r before I ran into a
> blank wall. I grepped all of the regular files in /usr/
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 04:16:13PM +0100, Bernd Walter wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 09:30:43AM +0100, Christoph P. Kukulies wrote:
> > Just a question. Maybe it isn't true but to me it seems there
> > is still this duality between ttyd and cuad serial devices.
> >
> > Why is that? I'm just ask
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 02:01:35PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> > I have been trying to write my own UFS-like filesystem
> > implementation for fun. I had read somewhere that UFS was developed in
> > user space (correct me if I'm wrong on that one) and then moved over
> > to kernel-space. I was wo
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 10:14:19AM -0300, Patrick Tracanelli wrote:
> Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> >On Wednesday 29 March 2006 14:34, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> >
> >>dump + restore is slow but reliabe.
> >
> >Faster than dd for disks that aren't full :)
> >
> >It also gives you a defrag as well as allowi
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 09:32:20PM +, Mike Silbersack wrote:
> Well, a benchmark should be able to show that, assuming that a set of
> files larger than physical ram is used. I wasn't intending to imply that
> thttpd was necessarily superior to Apache, I just would be interested to
> see how
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:41:44AM -0700, Michael Smith wrote:
> You could also use this technique to maliciously exhaust a user's quota,
> by linking to their temporary files. I'm not sure what the standards
> have to say about this, but I don't much like the current behaviour.
The truely par
On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 10:17:23AM +0100, Mats Larsson wrote:
> Via just recently announced their new Nehemiah processor capable of smp,
> presumably slow as its precursor but also the lowest power consuming
> processor at the market (at least with standard socket fcpga motherboard)
[...]
> http://
On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 11:21:49AM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 10:17:23AM +0100, Mats Larsson wrote:
> :> Via just recently announced their new Nehemiah processor capable of smp,
> :> presumably slow as its precursor but also the lowest power consuming
> :> processor at
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 02:39:44PM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> fd0 is block buffered. Try:
>
> dd bs=18k of=/dev/rfd0c if=memtest86-2.9/precomp.bin
>
> I forget why, but 18k maximizes performance on (some?) floppies.
Because a 1440 kbyte floppy has 80 tracks, and it's double sided.
Thus, 9kbyt
23 matches
Mail list logo
