On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 12:56:51 -0800
"Joshua D. Drake" wrote:
> I know many perfectly intelligent people that are better served
> through diagrams, pdf and color than a mailing list. Most of them
> make sure geeks like us, *EAT*.
> Does that mean they are not intelligent or perhaps that there
> ta
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Jason Long
wrote:
> Scott Marlowe wrote:
> You got me. I have a set of mirrored raptors. I am not sure the disk i/o
> subsystem is a bottleneck.
> The whole DB is 50 mb with minimal users.
Then you're only ever writing to the db, and 50Meg is teeny tiny.
Even m
Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Jason Long
wrote:
A faster server.
Well the sever is plenty fast. It has 2 quad core 1600MHz FSB 3.0 GHz Xeon
5472 CPUs and a very light workload.
A few things.
That doesn't make a fast server. The disk i/o subsystem makes a fas
On Jan 15, 2009, at 1:02 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Jason Long
wrote:
Steve Atkins wrote:
I'm sure none of that other than the last actually applies to you,
but
those are
the expectations you set by using HTML email and then insulting all
the list members w
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Jason Long
wrote:
> Steve Atkins wrote:
>>
>> I'm sure none of that other than the last actually applies to you, but
>> those are
>> the expectations you set by using HTML email and then insulting all
>> the list members when someone asks you to stop. That's not th
On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 20:39 +, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
> and we also oppose to answering on top of message, and citing
> everything underneeth.
> Why? Because your words should say what you mean, not show it by its
> look. Hence, plain ascii is enough for us - and should be for every
> intel
Steve Atkins wrote:
On Jan 15, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Jason Long wrote:
I don't mean to be a pain either and I mean no disrespect to anyone
on this list in the following comments.
However, this is about the most anal list ever.
I see so many emails on here about people complaining regarding the
On Jan 15, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Jason Long wrote:
I don't mean to be a pain either and I mean no disrespect to anyone
on this list in the following comments.
However, this is about the most anal list ever.
I see so many emails on here about people complaining regarding the
proper way to repl
On 15/01/2009 20:44, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> We're a bunch of fuzzy little kittens
> playing with balls of yarn by comparison. :)
Now *there's* an image! :-)
Ray.
--
Raymond O'Donnell, Director of Music, Galway Cathedral, Ireland
r
On 15/01/2009 20:32, Jason Long wrote:
> However, this is about the most anal list ever. I see so many emails on
> here about people complaining regarding the proper way to reply or post
> to the list.
Well, as someone else has just pointed out, it's all about readability
and making your words ea
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Jason Long
wrote:
> A faster server.
> Well the sever is plenty fast. It has 2 quad core 1600MHz FSB 3.0 GHz Xeon
> 5472 CPUs and a very light workload.
A few things.
That doesn't make a fast server. The disk i/o subsystem makes a fast
server. And you've menti
On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 14:32 -0600, Jason Long wrote:
> I don't mean to be a pain either and I mean no disrespect to anyone on
> this list in the following comments.
>
> However, this is about the most anal list ever.
You haven't been to the debian list have you? :).
> I see so many emails on h
and we also oppose to answering on top of message, and citing
everything underneeth.
Why? Because your words should say what you mean, not show it by its
look. Hence, plain ascii is enough for us - and should be for every
intelligent human being.
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Jason Long
wrote
I don't mean to be a pain either and I mean no disrespect to anyone on
this list in the following comments.
However, this is about the most anal list ever.
I see so many emails on here about people complaining regarding the
proper way to reply or post to the list.
I used larger font to point
Alan Hodgson wrote:
On Thursday 15 January 2009, Jason Long
wrote:
*I am attempting to vacuum and reindex my database. It keeps timing
out. See commands and last part of output below. The vacuum or reindex
only takes a short time to complete normally because the database it
less than 50 m
On 15/01/2009 20:21, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 20:13 +, Raymond O'Donnell wrote:
>> I don't mean to be a pain, but could you please avoid HUGE type sizes
>> such as the aboveor better still, avoid using HTML altogether in
>> your emails to this list.
> The answer to th
On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 20:13 +, Raymond O'Donnell wrote:
> On 15/01/2009 20:06, Jason Long wrote:
>
> I am attempting to vacuum...[snip]
>
> I don't mean to be a pain, but could you please avoid HUGE type sizes
> such as the aboveor better still, avoid using HTML altogether in
> your email
On Thursday 15 January 2009, Jason Long
wrote:
> *I am attempting to vacuum and reindex my database. It keeps timing
> out. See commands and last part of output below. The vacuum or reindex
> only takes a short time to complete normally because the database it
> less than 50 mb. I have the qu
On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 14:06 -0600, Jason Long wrote:
> I am attempting to vacuum and reindex my database. It keeps timing
> out. See commands and last part of output below. The vacuum or
> reindex only takes a short time to complete normally because the
> database it less than 50 mb. I have the
On 15/01/2009 20:06, Jason Long wrote:
I am attempting to vacuum...[snip]
I don't mean to be a pain, but could you please avoid HUGE type sizes
such as the aboveor better still, avoid using HTML altogether in
your emails to this list.
It makes it look as if you are not just shouting, but SCR
*I am attempting to vacuum and reindex my database. It keeps timing
out. See commands and last part of output below. The vacuum or reindex
only takes a short time to complete normally because the database it
less than 50 mb. I have the query timeout set to 2 minutes, but I do
not know if th
21 matches
Mail list logo
