On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 04:55:56PM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> ln /dev/zero /tmp/zero
> ln /dev/hda ~/hda
> ln /dev/mem /var/tmp/README
None of these (of course) work if you use mount options to restrict device
nodes on those filesystems.
Sean
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 05:27:11PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > I'm fairly sure it is the file buffers as the apache is already
> > reniced to 20, it is got max 50 processes and each of processes is
> > limited to like 1.5mb of size via ulimit.
>
> nice wont help you, it controls schedu
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 10:57:57AM +0100, Dr S.M. Huen wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Sean Hunter wrote:
>
> >
> > For large memory boxes, this is ridiculous. Should I have 8GB of swap?
> >
>
> Do I understand you correctly?
> ECC grade SDRAM for your 8GB
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 11:16:27AM +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> On 06 Jun 2001 09:54:31 +0100, Sean Hunter wrote:
> > > This is what Linus recommended for 2.4 (swap = 2 * RAM), saying that
> > > anything less won't do any good: 2.4 overallocates swap even if it
>
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 10:19:30AM +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> On 05 Jun 2001 23:19:08 -0400, Derek Glidden wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 12:16:30PM +1000, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > "Jeffrey W. Baker" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Because the 2.4 VM is so broken, and
> > > > because my machines
On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 09:42:26PM -0400, Russell Leighton wrote:
>
> I also need some 2.4 features and can't really goto 2.2.
> I would have to agree that the VM is too broken for production...looking
> forward to the work that (hopefully) will be in 2.4.6 to resolve these issues.
>
Boring to
1 at 10:31:01AM +0200, Sasi Peter wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2001, Sean Hunter wrote:
>
> > Why would you want to run a web server with 8 processors rather than four
> > webservers with 2 each?
>
> As you might already know, after the interviews to Mingo I assumed, that a
Why would you want to run a web server with 8 processors rather than four
webservers with 2 each?
Sean
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 09:24:48AM +0200, Sasi Peter wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I am just writing an essay, an have mentioned TUX as a performance and
> scalability linearity recort holder with TUX, ref
My approach is something like the others. I developed a small wrapper to catch
unaligned traps on alpha. What it does is run a program in gdb with some
specified arguments (it also sets up so that the process gets a SIGBUS when it
does an unaligned access, but that's probably not relevant here).
Also make sure you aren't suffering database lock contention from Mysql. This
causes very fast context switching on the database server, and is typically
unable to do useful work even though its load avg is not high. "vmstat" is
useful here.
Sean
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 01:55:01PM -0700, Tim M
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 07:44:17PM +0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> with multi-user concept, conceptually there should be an
> administrator to create account, grant permission, etc.
> no my sister doesn't want that. i bet there are billions of
> people not willing to learn how to use a computer,
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 05:26:27PM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> All the above does is to remove the last comma from 3 enumeration lists.
> I know that gcc has no problem with that, but to be strictly correct the
> last entry should not have a trailing comma.
>
Sadly not. This isn't a gcc thing
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 01:01:54PM +0200, Guest section DW wrote:
> [Never use planes where the company's engineers spend their
> time designing algorithms for selecting which passenger
> must be thrown out when the plane is overloaded.]
This is (as far as I can see) a fantastically specious argu
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 06:08:15AM -0600, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> Sure - very simple. If the execute bit is set on a file, don't allow
> ANY write to the file. This does modify the permission bits slightly
> but I don't think it is an unreasonable thing to have.
>
Are we not then in the somewhat
I propose
/proc/sys/kernel/im_too_lame_to_learn_how_to_use_the_most_basic_of_unix_tools_so_i_want_the_kernel_to_be_filled_with_crap_to_disguise_my_ineptitude
Any support?
Sean
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 02:45:51PM -, Laramie Leavitt wrote:
> > Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > > Paul Flinders <[EMAIL
The identd wot I wrote is still fast as anything on 2.4 :)
As you can see from this teeny sample of my ident log, I take just a little
over 1/100th of a second to respond (on average). :)
2001-02-25 16:18:35.714731500 Q [194.75.152.225] - [32907, 25]
2001-02-25 16:18:35.726085500 A [194.75.152.2
I have already written a 2.2 implementation which does not suffer from these
problems. It was rejected because Alan Cox (and others) felt it only provided
security through obscurity.
Sean
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 11:40:37PM +0800, Matt Johnston wrote:
> OpenBSD has a working implementation, migh
On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 03:38:33PM -0200, Carlos Carvalho wrote:
> Sean Hunter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote on 14 February 2001 17:26:
> >This is an application problem, not a kernel one. You need to upgrade your
> >netkit.
>
> Yes, I was quite confident of this. However,
On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 03:11:17PM -0200, Carlos Carvalho wrote:
> Jan-Benedict Glaw ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote on 14 February 2001 15:48:
> >With my currently installed ping (netkit-ping 0.10-6 from Debian Woody)
> >I get unaligned accesses:
> >
> >ping(15953): unaligned trap at 0001200030
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 04:31:24PM -0700, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 11:33:47AM -0500, Wakko Warner wrote:
> > > It was posted to lkml, so no link (except if you want to dig through
> > > lkml mail archives).
> >
> > It booted but then it oops'ed before userland I belive.
Hi Richard.
I'm _very_ keen to try this (my Alpha won't boot 2.4 at the mo), however I
think the attachments faery has been playing tricks again.
Do you have a patch relative to 2.4.0-test10?
Sean
On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 01:39:31AM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> [ For l-k, the issue is that
Sorry, I know this is a little left-field, but how about redesigning your
process so that instead of using a load_avg, you start all your calculations
from a single server on each node? It could queue up incoming calculations,
and fork a child to do each one.
Of course, it would catch a signal w
On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 11:10:46AM -0600, matthew wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Sean Hunter wrote:
>
> > Pardon my speculations (if I am wrong), but isn't this an oracle question?
>
>
> It could be.
>
>
> > Isn't oracle killing the server by
Pardon my speculations (if I am wrong), but isn't this an oracle question?
Isn't oracle killing the server by trying to clean up 1800 connections all at
once? When they're all connected, most of the work is done by one or two
oracle processes, but when you kill your ddos thing, all of the orac
24 matches
Mail list logo
