Avery Pennarun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Six orders of magnitude??
Bandwidth and latency are not the same thing.
Guy
On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 10:27:15PM -0500, Avery Pennarun wrote:
> Six orders of magnitude?? In the unlikely event that my 100 MHz SDRAM can
> really handle 32 bits (4 bytes) per cycle, then it can transfer 400
> megabytes per second. It's not REALLY that fast, but I'll give it the
> benefit of t
On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 08:13:30PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >> Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Don't think so small. Some of us run quite big machines on Debian; my
> > workstation/server at work has ~300MB of swap configured from ~25GB of
> > disk. >128 MB of swap
>> Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Don't think so small. Some of us run quite big machines on Debian; my
> workstation/server at work has ~300MB of swap configured from ~25GB of
> disk. >128 MB of swap is _not_ very big...
I'm NOT thinking small. I'm thinking efficiency. You ar
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 12:58:41AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> >
> >a) If you DO NEED a > 128 MB swap file you are in serious trouble. You
> > should get more ram; the induced cost of extremely slow operation is much
> > higher than that of two lo
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>
>a) If you DO NEED a > 128 MB swap file you are in serious trouble. You
> should get more ram; the induced cost of extremely slow operation is much
> higher than that of two lousy DIMMs.
Don't think so small. Some of us run quite big machines on Deb
On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 04:40:35PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Gergely Madarasz wrote:
>
> > > But is that specific problem Debian/slink related..? That is, does it work
> > > correctly with potato?
> >
> > No, it does not work correctly with potato either. It seems to b
The guys running the big machines are going to be a minority
and should have no problem downloading util-linux. Even over a modem,
its probably OK. It may be not worth it to risk the instability for
the vast majority.
The kernel source itself may be a problem for a slow or
expens
> "VR" == Vincent Renardias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
VR> The 2.9 Debian package already contains the alpha patches
VR> supplied by Christopher C Chimelis
VR> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (see bug report #17661). I am
VR> not aware of any other patch or problem specific to the alpha
On 27 Jan 1999, Mikolaj J. Habryn wrote:
> > "VR" == Vincent Renardias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> VR> Including the current (2.9g-5) util-linux from unstable in
> VR> frozen is a Bad Idea(tm). This version has several big
> VR> packaging issues.
>
> On top of everything e
> "VR" == Vincent Renardias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
VR> Including the current (2.9g-5) util-linux from unstable in
VR> frozen is a Bad Idea(tm). This version has several big
VR> packaging issues.
On top of everything else, alpha support (and quite possibly other
non-x86 arch
> In my more than honest opinion, I think util-linux 2.9g should be included
> in slink. Developments in the computer business are going fast, as everyone
> knows, and on the day slink will get released, I think a lot of people who
> are going to upgrade to slink, also want to have the newest kerne
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Gergely Madarasz wrote:
>
> > > But is that specific problem Debian/slink related..? That is, does it work
> > > correctly with potato?
> >
> > No, it does not work correctly with potato either. It seems to be a
> > general in
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Gergely Madarasz wrote:
> > But is that specific problem Debian/slink related..? That is, does it work
> > correctly with potato?
>
> No, it does not work correctly with potato either. It seems to be a
> general incompatibility with 2.2
2.2 did something bizzar to how the p
Marcelo E. Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a) If you DO NEED a > 128 MB swap file you are in serious trouble.
Not if you have 2G ram.
--
Raul
Joey Hess wrote:
> I'm forced to agree. Support for swap partitions > 128 mb is a new
> feature; a mkswap that doesn't support it isn't a major incompatability.
> Few people will need the feature anyway, and if they do need it the simple
> workaround is to use multiple 128 mb partitions.
Okay, rea
On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 01:33:01PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 16:21:56 -0500, Tim \(Pass the Prozac\) Sailer wrote:
>
> >I have about 50 machines with all 4 DIMM slots filled with 128M sticks.
> >I have *8* 128M swap partitions, and it's not enough since the (*&[EMAIL
> >PROTE
On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 08:36:53PM +0100, Remco van de Meent wrote:
> I just tried to match the Changes file from Linux-2.2.0 with the slink
> distribution, and was happy to find out that almost every requirement
> mentioned in that file is fullfilled by the packages (versions) in slink.
> Howe
Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> I'm forced to ask: what for?
I'm forced to agree. Support for swap partitions > 128 mb is a new feature;
a mkswap that doesn't support it isn't a major incompatability. Few people
will need the feature anyway, and if they do need it the simple workaround
is to use mult
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Remco van de Meent wrote:
> In my more than honest opinion, I think util-linux 2.9g should be included
> in slink. Developments in the computer business are going fast, as everyone
> knows, and on the day slink will get released, I think a lot of people who
> are going to upg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 16:21:56 -0500, Tim \(Pass the Prozac\) Sailer wrote:
>I have about 50 machines with all 4 DIMM slots filled with 128M sticks.
>I have *8* 128M swap partitions, and it's not enough since the (*&[EMAIL
>PROTECTED]
>users run progra
On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 03:03:14PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> I'm forced to ask: what for?
>
> a) If you DO NEED a > 128 MB swap file you are in serious trouble. You
>should get more ram; the induced cost of extremely slow operation is much
>higher than that of two lousy DIMMs.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 15:03:14 -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
>c) The argument "something on the kernel wants it" doesn't hold. For that
> matter, the kernel wants coda, and that's in project/experimental. What
> did you say? That coda is not es
On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 08:36:53PM +0100, Remco van de Meent wrote:
> I just tried to match the Changes file from Linux-2.2.0 with the slink
> distribution, and was happy to find out that almost every requirement
> mentioned in that file is fullfilled by the packages (versions) in slink.
> However
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Remco van de Meent wrote:
> Gergely Madarasz wrote:
> > Another problem: bootpc from the netstd package does not work with 2.2.
> > Btw the kernel has bootp support itself, but it can't be used with pnp
> > network cards which need isapnp initialization. So my network setup wh
Hi,
With this message, I know I'm going to touch a rather sensitive subject, but
however, I think it's worth it.
I just tried to match the Changes file from Linux-2.2.0 with the slink
distribution, and was happy to find out that almost every requirement
mentioned in that file is fullfilled by the
Gergely Madarasz wrote:
> Another problem: bootpc from the netstd package does not work with 2.2.
> Btw the kernel has bootp support itself, but it can't be used with pnp
> network cards which need isapnp initialization. So my network setup which
> used bootp breaks with 2.2...
But is that specifi
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Remco van de Meent wrote:
> Also, Stephen Crowley noted that new dhcp-packages should be included in
> slink, because the ones that currently are in slink ain't compatible with
> Linux-2.2 either, but maybe he can explain that himself :)
Another problem: bootpc from the netst
28 matches
Mail list logo
