On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 2:40 AM, Steven Crothers
wrote:
> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 6:29 PM, yonatan pingle
> wrote:
>> if you use the SSD for swap, don't put anything important on them, I
>> have managed to destroy a drive which was used for heavy swap
>> operations.
>> (insane experiment with KVM
> I was running on 3gbps sata bus, and the performance was great, it
> just dies in one big crash without giving any clues about it.
If only SSD's were a viable solution for long-term storage, we could
theoretically increase our virtualization many times over. It's to bad
the technology hasn't c
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Steven Crothers
wrote:
>> I was running on 3gbps sata bus, and the performance was great, it
>> just dies in one big crash without giving any clues about it.
>
> If only SSD's were a viable solution for long-term storage, we could
> theoretically increase our vi
On Sun, 22 May 2011, yonatan pingle wrote:
To: CentOS mailing list
From: yonatan pingle
Subject: Re: [CentOS] SSD for Centos SWAP /tmp & /var/ partition
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Steven Crothers
wrote:
I was running on 3gbps sata bus, and the performance was great, it
just dies in
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Keith Roberts wrote:
> On Sun, 22 May 2011, yonatan pingle wrote:
>
>> To: CentOS mailing list
>> From: yonatan pingle
>> Subject: Re: [CentOS] SSD for Centos SWAP /tmp & /var/ partition
>>
>> On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Steven Crothers
>> wrote:
Lamar Owen wrote on 05/21/2011 04:25 PM:
>> early in the thread, it was clear from a reply's content that
>> > a locally installed 'ftpd' and not the CentOS vsftpd was
>> > being used
> Looking... don't see that. Perhaps I'm just missing it.
Same here. The OP only replied once, and had the sam
Thanks,
I'm trying to keep CentOS 5.5 from upgrading to 5.6 because of my
issue with the time sync. I thought I had it figured out till today. I
have tried google for help but with no luck. Can someone point me to a
page or link that will give me a good idea as to how to stop the upg
Mailing List wrote:
> I'm trying to keep CentOS 5.5 from upgrading to 5.6 because of my issue
> with the time sync. I thought I had it figured out till today. I have
> tried google for help but with no luck. Can someone point me to a page
> or link that will give me a good idea as to how to stop th
At Sun, 22 May 2011 10:22:24 -0400 CentOS mailing list
wrote:
>
> This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format.
>
> --===1683845214==
> Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature";
> micalg=sha1; boundary="ms0501010204000801
On 05/20/2011 05:55 AM, Drew wrote:
> An .1 release is basically a .0 release + patches so I don't see any
> real difference. The hard part is reverse engineering the .0 release
> build environment and the .1 follows pretty quick from there.
You weren't reading the very long thread of the last wee
On 05/20/2011 01:26 PM, Keith Roberts wrote:
> I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to use a new SSD
> for moving all the disk i/o to, that Linux likes to do so
> often.
Yes, it's often a really good idea. If you're doing software RAID on
Linux, you really should either disable disk drives'
On Sun, 22 May 2011, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> Who said anything about 5.6 breaking the environment? Everyone in the
> very long thread gave the excuse that it was done concurrent with other
> releases.
customary trolling by Gordon Messmer -- passive agressive,
implying an unmet obligation
On 05/22/2011 02:57 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
> customary trolling by Gordon Messmer -- passive agressive,
> implying an unmet obligation
The only obligation that I think exists is for everyone to have
reasonable expectations of the project. If I have ever implied
otherwise, please point me toward
I think you're missing the point, if you read between the lines, the
complaint I see is that CentOS (Community Enterprise Operating System)
is not community based whatsoever. Displaying the self-righteous
attitude you are doesn't earn you cookie points or make you look like
you're important. What i
On Sun, 22 May 2011, Steven Crothers wrote:
> I think you're missing the point, if you read between the lines, the
> complaint I see is that CentOS (Community Enterprise Operating System)
> is not community based whatsoever.
I don't mind-read as to what a third party meant so well as
you, it see
2011/5/23 R P Herrold
>
> A 'vetting' and reputation system was proposed in some early
> design documents for fedora.us, but that project lacked the
> mass to make it work; cAos tried a variation of this, and
> encountered a problem with its v.2 when a novice packager
> inadvertently introduced a
16 matches
Mail list logo
