On Wednesday 03 March 2004 16:51, loic d'Anterroches wrote:
Hi,
Do I am wrong or thanks to the vserver approach I don't need to setup an
ip takeover? Or formulated another way: heartbeat is only used to start
the vserver on BB if BA goes down, drbd taking care of the synchro of the
data.
We
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 13:35:53 +0100
Dariush Pietrzak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1'st - it was not a fork bomb. I expected that -t 5 will give to vserver
no mo then 10% of CPU time
Why would '-t 5' limit cpu usage to 10%? What patches are you using for
that?
Hi. None. It was my mistake. man
, 04.03.2004, 11:13, :
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 13:35:53 +0100
Dariush Pietrzak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1'st - it was not a fork bomb. I expected that -t 5 will give to vserver
no mo then 10% of CPU time
Why would '-t 5' limit cpu usage to 10%? What patches are you using for
that?
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 11:25:52 +0200
Alex Lyashkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Try CPU CAP.
Where could I read mode about this ?
___
Vserver mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
Hi,
Yes, you are right: heartbeat doesn't need to manage the ip takeover,
vserver does. We emit an unsolitcited arp reply in the vserver pre-start
script in order to inform all hosts in the local subnet about the
takeover.
We don't run the rebootmgr because we noticed that its open socket
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 22:39, wrote;
One year ago you made a ptah for vserver to use O(1) sheduled
(http://www.paul.sladen.org/vserver/archives/200302/0155.html) -
didn't you have same patch for 2.4.25 and O(1) patch, possible
form lck patchset ?
That patchmonster Herbert has included
Hm... but .2.4.24 has mremap hole - is there any workaround?
patch the hole.
--
Key fingerprint = 40D0 9FFB 9939 7320 8294 05E0 BCC7 02C4 75CC 50D9
We're giving you a new chance in life, and an opportunity
to screw it up in a new, original way.
___
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 10:57:40AM +0100, loic d'Anterroches wrote:
Hi,
Yes, you are right: heartbeat doesn't need to manage the ip takeover,
vserver does. We emit an unsolitcited arp reply in the vserver pre-start
script in order to inform all hosts in the local subnet about the
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 01:50:50PM +0200, ?? wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 23:23:49 +1300
Sam Vilain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 22:39, ?? wrote;
One year ago you made a ptah for vserver to use O(1) sheduled
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 05:57:18PM +0200, Alex Lyashkov wrote:
? ???, 04.03.2004, ? 11:36, ?? ?:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 11:25:52 +0200
Alex Lyashkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Try CPU CAP.
Where could I read mode about this ?
___
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 11:36:38AM +0200, ?? wrote:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 11:25:52 +0200
Alex Lyashkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Try CPU CAP.
Where could I read mode about this ?
had a look at the patch, doesn't seem to complicated
so if you volunteer to test it, I could add something
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 17:44:58 +0100
Herbert Poetzl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 11:36:38AM +0200, ?? wrote:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 11:25:52 +0200
Alex Lyashkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Try CPU CAP.
Where could I read mode about this ?
had a look at the
This seems to compile ok! However, there are some ANSI warnings at the
beginning. I am attaching my configure output and the compile output
for your information.
Micah
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004, Enrico Scholz wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Micah Anderson) writes:
I get the following error when I try
Micah Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This seems to compile ok! However, there are some ANSI warnings at the
beginning.
Just ignore them... util-vserver is C99 (and compiles without warnings
there). Pre-C99 compilers might give some warnings but they should
compile it.
Enrico
Hi
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 11:36:38AM +0200, ?? wrote:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 11:25:52 +0200
Alex Lyashkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Try CPU CAP.
Where could I read mode about this ?
had a look at the patch, doesn't seem to complicated
so if you volunteer to test it, I could
15 matches
Mail list logo
