On 14 March 2011 12:08, David kerber dcker...@verizon.net wrote:
Dave, could you give us any more information about your network? What is
the piece that's at 80% utilisation when you see the trouble? Is it a
point-to-point connection, or an Ethernet LAN, or what? If it's Ethernet,
what
On 15 March 2011 07:36, Leon Rosenberg rosenberg.l...@gmail.com wrote:
So a 64bit cpu has a 32bit mode, or how would a 32bit OS shrink the
transmit size? I mean the registers stay the same?
Frequently, the bottleneck with realistic loads is access to main memory
(or, not quite equivalently,
On 15 March 2011 13:02, Caldarale, Charles R chuck.caldar...@unisys.comwrote:
Also, a Java int, when allocated on the stack, must take up the same number
of bits as a pointer.
That's an interesting space/time trade-off (I presume it's to prevent
excess arithmetic on stack value accesses). I
On 21 March 2011 16:35, Goyo goyocas...@gmail.com wrote:
We want to move a file from origin/ to origin/target/
Previously, this movement was made perfect
Then, we change origin/target/ for a symlink called target which points to
another path in another partition.
Now, it doesn't move the
On 21 March 2011 17:36, Goyo goyocas...@gmail.com wrote:
The (another) problem is that we can't access the source code :S
*chuckle* Gotta love configurable code.
OK, so the issue is that you're short of space. How about mounting a
partition at origin/target? Or even origin, depending how short
On 21 March 2011 20:39, André Warnier a...@ice-sa.com wrote:
Maybe a guess : under Unix/Linux, move (mv) is a rename, and it is not
the same as copy + delete original. And a move (rename) works as long
as the source and target are inside the same filesystem, but not if they are
on different
On 22 March 2011 08:32, Goyo goyocas...@gmail.com wrote:
Inside origin there're about ten subdirs like target. Some of them are
symlinked to the new filesystem. The rest, must remain in their path so:
- AFAIK, we can't mount the new drive to origin/target because target is
not
the only
On 4 April 2011 18:29, André Warnier a...@ice-sa.com wrote:
Michael Jerger wrote:
last days I leased a virtual host at 1und1 (a german hoster).
Unfortunately 1und1 found a new, creative way to limit the joy of using
their VPH - they limit the number of operating-system processes to 256
On 18 April 2011 11:48, Venkata Surapaneni vsurapan...@imedx.com wrote:
I have installed Tomcat 5.5.23 on Windows 2008,32 bit and
Java 1.6.0_23 . The installation completed fine.
When I typed in localhost:8080 on the web page Tomcat home page is
displayed indicating that
You could use Windows' service dependency management (
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/193888) to start Tomcat only after Oracle
reports that it's running. This might still cause problems if Oracle does
the same as SQL Server and continues recovering after its official startup
has finished. In
Operating system and version?
Java version?
Tomcat version: 6.0.32 - thanks for this.
Java or native connector?
Pure Tomcat or something else in front? (I'm assuming pure Tomcat from what
else you say)
- Peter
On 25 May 2011 12:51, Asankha C. Perera asan...@apache.org wrote:
Hi All
During
On 9 June 2011 21:25, tom...@r322.com wrote:
I have a script setup does a wget hit to docs/config/valve.html
every 1 second. If the wget call takes longer than 1 second it
grabs a bunch of stats -- iostat, vmstat, top, jstack, last 30
lines of jvm.log.
Nice setup - I wish more people did
On 13 June 2011 21:41, Jeff Sturm jeff.st...@eprize.com wrote:
From: Bill Miller [mailto:millebi.subscripti...@gmail.com]
-Static image serving (much more economical because the HTTP server is
much lighter
weight than a JVM/App server) -etc...
[...]
I just tried a trivial benchmark of a
901 - 913 of 913 matches
Mail list logo
