Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Does XFS have any advantages over ext4 for normal users, eg with laptops?
>> I've only seen it touted for machines with enormous disks, 200TB plus.
> It is generally better at handling a lot of files - faster
> creation/deletion when there are a large number in the same dir
Send CentOS-announce mailing list submissions to
centos-annou...@centos.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
centos-announce-requ..
On Wed, June 11, 2014 18:31, Frank Cox wrote:
> I decided that the next time I reformatted my main desktop computer (this one)
> I would have a ssd installed in it to use for the boot drive. Now that Centos
> 7 is on the horizon, I'm thinking that the time is approaching when I'll want
> to do th
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 11:22 PM, Gé Weijers wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Les Mikesell
> wrote:
>
>> However, I can start a chrome connection to gmail and it just goes
>> direct (which happens to work, I just prefer the proxy which will use
>> a different outbound route). If I go
Makes me wonder what happens if a site uses spdy://
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Les Mikesell
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 11:22 PM, Gé Weijers wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Les Mikesell
> > wrote:
> >
> >> However, I can start a chrome connection to gmail and it just
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Billy Crook wrote:
> Makes me wonder what happens if a site uses spdy://
>
I'd expect that to be the case for chrome talking to gmail. But it is
supposed to run over https://.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
_
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:35 AM, James B. Byrne
wrote:
>
> On Wed, June 11, 2014 18:31, Frank Cox wrote:
> > I decided that the next time I reformatted my main desktop computer
> (this one)
> > I would have a ssd installed in it to use for the boot drive. Now that
> Centos
> > 7 is on the horiz
On 6/12/2014 9:38 AM, SilverTip257 wrote:
> A former employer of mine contracts out destruction of conventional hard
> drives with a machine that has a hydraulic arm and a wedge. Effectively
> bending the platters and some of the drive. Hardware destruction (prior to
> recycling/disposal) in cert
SilverTip257 wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:35 AM, James B. Byrne
> wrote:
>> On Wed, June 11, 2014 18:31, Frank Cox wrote:
>> I have a question about SSD respecting security. Recently I have been
>> investigating sanitizing these devices, together with 'smart-phones,
>> tablets and pads wh
On 6/12/2014 10:12 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> We use two methods: for the drives that are totally dead, or*sigh* the
> SCSI drives, they get deGaussed. For SATA that's still running, we use
> DBAN.*Great* software. From what I've read, one pass would probably be
> good enough, given how data's
On 6/11/2014 07:11, Timothy Murphy wrote:
>
> Does XFS have any advantages over ext4 for normal users, eg with laptops?
If you graph machine size -- in whatever dimension you like -- vs number
deployed, I think you'd find all laptops over on the left side of the
CentOS deployment curve. I'd exp
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 6:45 AM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
>
>>> Does XFS have any advantages over ext4 for normal users, eg with laptops?
>>> I've only seen it touted for machines with enormous disks, 200TB plus.
>
>> It is generally better at handling a lot of files - faster
>> creation/deletion whe
This little bit here is awesome and made me laugh. Thanks!
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Warren Young wrote:
>
> [*] The absolute XFS filesystem size limit is about 8 million terabytes,
> which requires about 500 cubic meters of the densest HDDs available
> today. You'd need 13 standard s
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Warren Young wrote:
>
>
> [*] The absolute XFS filesystem size limit is about 8 million terabytes,
>
Isn't there some ratio of RAM to filesystem size (or maybe number of
files or inodes) that you need to make it through an fsck?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikes..
On Thu Jun 12 17:21:43 UTC 2014, John R Pierce pierce at hogranch.com wrote:
> On 6/12/2014 10:12 AM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:
>> We use two methods: for the drives that are totally dead, or*sigh* the
>> SCSI drives, they get deGaussed. For SATA that's still running, we use
>> DBAN.*Great* s
James B. Byrne wrote:
> On Thu Jun 12 17:21:43 UTC 2014, John R Pierce pierce at hogranch.com
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/12/2014 10:12 AM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:
>>> We use two methods: for the drives that are totally dead, or*sigh* the
>>> SCSI drives, they get deGaussed. For SATA that's still runnin
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014, Jeremy Hoel wrote:
> This little bit here is awesome and made me laugh. Thanks!
Agreed. Warren wins the Internet today.
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Warren Young wrote:
>
>>
>> [*] The absolute XFS filesystem size limit is about 8 million
>> terabytes, which require
On 6/12/2014 12:54, Paul Heinlein wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2014, Jeremy Hoel wrote:
>
>> This little bit here is awesome and made me laugh. Thanks!
>
> Agreed. Warren wins the Internet today.
Thank you, thank you.
Now go read some "What if?" to see how a true master plays this game.
[*] https:/
Oh yeah.. He does great work. I'm looking forward to his book that comes
out.
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Warren Young wrote:
> On 6/12/2014 12:54, Paul Heinlein wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Jun 2014, Jeremy Hoel wrote:
> >
> >> This little bit here is awesome and made me laugh. Thanks!
> >
> >
Paul Heinlein wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2014, Jeremy Hoel wrote:
>
>> This little bit here is awesome and made me laugh. Thanks!
>
> Agreed. Warren wins the Internet today.
>
>> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Warren Young wrote:
>>>
>>> [*] The absolute XFS filesystem size limit is about 8 millio
--On Thursday, June 12, 2014 10:35:26 AM -0400 "James B. Byrne"
wrote:
> I have a question about SSD respecting security. [...]
> I have come to the rather
> unsettling conclusion that it is effectively impossible to 'sanitize'
> these things short of complete and utter physical destruction, pr
Hi Dan,
Chroot gets you a space that "looks" like it is a separate system. Given
this is R, I assume you are probably wanting this for HPC like
purposes... Could I suggest building your own version of R and
installing into a nfs area? You may also wish to investigate the
facilities provided by
--On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 07:52:56 AM -0400 Robert Heller
wrote:
> Before I go through the hassle of building it myself I want to know if
> someone else has built RPMS for Mailman 2.1.16.
Following up on this, has anyone got a documented procedure, .spec
files, or whatever for running 2.1.
23 matches
Mail list logo
