New compilation of firefox (v. 29.0)
build with
1) devtools-2 (http://people.centos.org/tru/devtools-2/readme)
2) python27 (from SCL) (
http://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/6.5/i386/external_products/softwarecollections/
)
3) icu-last-50.1.2 from remi (http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPM
This idea is intruiging...
Suppose one has a set of file servers called A, B, C, D, and so forth, all
running CentOS 6.5 64-bit, all being interconnected with 10GbE. These file
servers can be divided into identical pairs, so A is the same
configuration (diks, processors, etc) as B, C the same a
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Steve Thompson wrote:
> This idea is intruiging...
>
> Suppose one has a set of file servers called A, B, C, D, and so forth, all
> running CentOS 6.5 64-bit, all being interconnected with 10GbE. These file
> servers can be divided into identical pairs, so A is t
On Sat, 17 May 2014, SilverTip257 wrote:
> Sounds like you might be reinventing the wheel.
I think not; see below.
> DRBD [0] does what it sounds like you're trying to accomplish [1].
> Especially since you have two nodes A+B or C+D that are RAIDed over iSCSI.
> It's rather painless to set up tw
How about glusterfs?
17.5.2014 20.01 kirjoitti "Steve Thompson" :
> On Sat, 17 May 2014, SilverTip257 wrote:
>
> > Sounds like you might be reinventing the wheel.
>
> I think not; see below.
>
> > DRBD [0] does what it sounds like you're trying to accomplish [1].
> > Especially since you have two
On Sat, 17 May 2014, Eero Volotinen wrote:
> How about glusterfs?
I have tried glusterfs; the large file performance is reasonable, but
the small file performance is too low to be useable.
Steve
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.ce
New compilation of firefox (v. 29.0)
build with
1) devtools-2 (http://people.centos.org/tru/devtools-2/readme)
2) python27 (from SCL)
(http://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/6.5/i386/external_products/softwarecollections/)
3) icu-last-50.1.2 from remi (http://rpms.famillecollet.com/S
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Steve Thompson wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2014, SilverTip257 wrote:
>
> > Sounds like you might be reinventing the wheel.
>
> I think not; see below.
> > DRBD [0] does what it sounds like you're trying to accomplish [1].
> > Especially since you have two nodes A+B
Top posting ALWAYS makes sense when the poster has included nearly 200
lines of redundant and time-wasting waffle from previous posters.
Scrolling down - all the way down - to read a few words is time wasting
and irritating.
Until posters ruthlessly exclude all redundant material, top posting
ma
On 05/16/2014 06:40 PM, Original Woodchuck wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 03:27:23PM -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
>
Could someone explain again why we are not suppose to top post?
> It's polite and shows you are a gentleman. It's in the same category of
> "consideration for others" as keeping
Am 17.05.2014 23:22, schrieb Always Learning:
>
> Top posting ALWAYS makes sense when the poster has included nearly 200
> lines of redundant and time-wasting waffle from previous posters.
False argument.
Top-posting is nearly always combined with fully quoting the previous
mailing. That is bsol
On 2014-05-17, Always Learning wrote:
>
> Top posting ALWAYS makes sense when the poster has included nearly 200
> lines of redundant and time-wasting waffle from previous posters.
No, it doesn't. Just trim the excess.
--keith
--
kkel...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
__
On May 17, 2014, at 3:29 PM, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
> Am 17.05.2014 23:22, schrieb Always Learning:
>>
>> Top posting ALWAYS makes sense when the poster has included nearly 200
>> lines of redundant and time-wasting waffle from previous posters.
>
> False argument.
In reading through this pe
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 03:36:16PM -0700, Russell Miller wrote:
> One of the adages that drove the creation of the Internet is thus: "Be
> conservative in what you
> send, and liberal in what you accept".
... says the person sending 100 character width emails :-)
--
rgds
Stephen
_
On 17.05.2014 19:00, Steve Thompson wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2014, SilverTip257 wrote:
>
>> Sounds like you might be reinventing the wheel.
>
> I think not; see below.
>
>> DRBD [0] does what it sounds like you're trying to accomplish [1].
>> Especially since you have two nodes A+B or C+D that ar
On Sun, 18 May 2014, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
> Why specifically do you care about that? Both with your solution and the
> DRBD one the clients only see a NFS endpoint so what does it matter that
> this endpoint is placed on one of the storage systems?
The whole point of the exercise is to en
On Sun, 2014-05-18 at 00:29 +0200, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
> Am 17.05.2014 23:22, schrieb Always Learning:
> >
> > Top posting ALWAYS makes sense when the poster has included nearly 200
> > lines of redundant and time-wasting waffle from previous posters.
>
> False argument.
I am against TOP PO
On Sat, 2014-05-17 at 15:33 -0700, Keith Keller wrote:
> On 2014-05-17, Always Learning wrote:
> >
> > Top posting ALWAYS makes sense when the poster has included nearly 200
> > lines of redundant and time-wasting waffle from previous posters.
>
> No, it doesn't. Just trim the excess.
Please
Have you looked at parallel filesystems such as Lustre and fhgfs?
On 18 May 2014 01:14, Steve Thompson wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2014, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
>
> > Why specifically do you care about that? Both with your solution and the
> > DRBD one the clients only see a NFS endpoint so wh
Quoting Alexander Dalloz :
> Am 17.05.2014 23:22, schrieb Always Learning:
>>
>> Top posting ALWAYS makes sense when the poster has included nearly 200
>> lines of redundant and time-wasting waffle from previous posters.
>
> False argument.
>
+1
___
Ce
20 matches
Mail list logo
