On Thu, 8 May 2003 03:08, peace bwitchu wrote:
> this box working too hard or is the normal. Since
> this box is dedicated solely to dns I just want to
> make sure that I'm not pushing bind too hard and end
> up with stability problems.
Without knowing how many machines are using "this box" as a
On Wed, 7 May 2003 10:19:52 -0700, Victor Yoalli Dominguez Torres
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
I am about to set up apache with dynamic virtual hosts.
What I need to do later is to provide my clients with weblog statistics,
and with this configuration I only get one vcommon type log file,
On Wed, 7 May 2003 11:48:24 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I looked at SquirrelMail, but php4 is not supported with apache2.
Yes it does. I'm testing the Apache/2.0.45 PHP/4.3.1 combination and it
works like a charm. You'll notice a huge speedup in php scripts if you are
upgrading fr
Hi all,
I am about to set up apache with dynamic virtual hosts.
What I need to do later is to provide my clients with weblog statistics, and
with this configuration I only get one vcommon type log file, then I need to
split them in a format that I can later give to webalizer or analog.
Have so
I have recently installed bind 9.2.2 on 2 debian woody
sytems and have a couple of questions concerning the
cpu utilization. Bind is running on a 2.4 Ghrtz P4
and during a time period of 11:00 am -2:00pm the
average cpu util. is around 1o percent. during the
other hours of the day we are around 3
Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> Why does the implementation language matter? Do you care if your
> system binaries are written in C vs C++?
Not at all, unless the implementation language causes limitations.
I looked at SquirrelMail, but php4 is not supported with apache2. It
also looked painful to get t
> Had the same problem. I had to manually edit config.php. Here are the
> steps I took:
>
> 1. Backup up config.php
> 2. Run conf.pl
> 3. open config.php and the backup, then do a step-by-step comparison
>
> Not sure where the problem was. Sorry, but I have several users who check
> their mail via
> I'm having some trouble getting Postfix SMTP auth working. I'm using
> unstable postfix and
> postfix-tls on testing, with unstable libsasl2 and libsasl2-modules.
> Whenever I try to send a
> message from my mail client (KMail) on another box, I get this in
> /var/log/mail.log:
> I suspect th
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 06:09:17AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I suspect that postfix is trying to use the wrong socket, or something like
> that. I did a
> netstat -ap, and found that saslauthd is indeed listening on
> /var/run/saslauthd/mux. I'd really
> appreciate any ideas anyone
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 05:46:49PM -0500, Rod Rodolico wrote:
> PHP has some problems, at least in the SquirrelMail arena. First I want to
> say I use it, like it, and my clients like it. But I've had to create some
> work-arounds.
>
> The one that is most striking is that it will not easily downl
Craig wrote:
Well we cannot run raidhotadd to add the new partition because the root file
system is already mounted so we get disk busy error.
-Original Message-
From: thing [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 07 May 2003 09:37
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Recontruction a failed raid arra
On 07 May 2003, Craig wrote:
> We have a server running raid 1 mirroring and one of the HDD
> failed. We have since replaced the failed drive and have
> re-constructed 2 out of the 3 raid arrays. The problem we are
> having is with re-contructing the raid array runnning on the root
> partition.
I
Hi
Guys
We have a server
running raid 1 mirroring and one of the HDD failed. We have since
replaced
the failed drive and
have re-constructed 2 out of the 3 raid arrays. The problem we are having is
with re-contructing the raid array runnning on the root
partition.
Any help would be
g
I'm having some trouble getting Postfix SMTP auth working. I'm using unstable
postfix and
postfix-tls on testing, with unstable libsasl2 and libsasl2-modules. Whenever I
try to send a
message from my mail client (KMail) on another box, I get this in
/var/log/mail.log:
May 6 23:54:38 rama p
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 01:07:11AM -0400, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jeremy D. Zawodny
> >
> > Windows == 63M
> > Linux == 57M
> > Debian== 16M
> > Microsoft == 40M
> >
> > You can try to prove anything with numbers. :-)
>
> What we as Debian users know
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeremy D. Zawodny
>
> Windows == 63M
> Linux == 57M
> Debian== 16M
> Microsoft == 40M
>
> You can try to prove anything with numbers. :-)
What we as Debian users know as fact (MS+Win has security flaws) is mirrored in
your numbers. Linux is bigger th
16 matches
Mail list logo
