RE: Anyone run LInux with 16GB RAM?

2003-08-04 Thread Kourosh
Steven, The system will be running Oracle 9i and though I'm not a DBA from what I understand Oracle will use every little bit of RAM you throw at it and still want more. Of course that's what I've picked up from DBA'a talking on other lists, not from experience. We'll see how it goes. Thanks f

RE: Anyone run LInux with 16GB RAM?

2003-08-04 Thread Kourosh
Steven, Thanks for the reply. Will try these out and I suggested moving to a quad-proc system. That may very well end up being the best bet anyway =) Will continue playing. Thanks, Kourosh On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 15:26, Jones, Steven wrote: > Some ideas we threw rounf the office, > > page siz

Re: Postfix and SMTP-AUTH once again

2003-08-04 Thread Richard Stevens
Hi, > Hint: Run either unstable or stable. Testing has no support with > security patches. Hmm, I thought about that for quite some time. Stable is way too old for some things I need to do with the server, unstable really sometimes is unsatable. I noticed that on my desktop but there it's ok. I

RE: Anyone run LInux with 16GB RAM?

2003-08-04 Thread Jones, Steven
Some ideas we threw rounf the office, page size increase? 4 meg pages? turn off virtual memory? Isnt this a little light on CPU's if your considering 16 Gig of ram? (yes I know its cheap) regards Thing -Original Message- From: Kourosh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 5 Augus

Anyone run LInux with 16GB RAM?

2003-08-04 Thread Kourosh
Hi, Has anyone been able to get a Linux system, preferably Debian Woody, to run stably with 16GB RAM? I have someone who has a Dual Xeon proc system with 8GM RAM (8 x 1GB ECC registered) running Debian Woody and Oracle 9i with no problems. They would very much like to up this to 16GB (8 x 2GB EC

Re: Postfix and SMTP-AUTH once again

2003-08-04 Thread Christian Hammers
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 04:42:15PM +0200, Richard Stevens wrote: > I'm using debian testing and installed postfix and postfix-tls. I searched the > net and tried just about any howto and any suggestion I could find but it > just doesn't work. Hint: Run either unstable or stable. Testing has no s

unsubscribe

2003-08-04 Thread Alex Linko
 

Re: Apache log analyzer

2003-08-04 Thread Sami Haahtinen
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 10:17:40AM -0700, Wade Richards wrote: > On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 13:00:33 +0300, Sami Haahtinen writes: > >awstats > > It does the best job of these three, it collects just about every bit > > of data that i can think of (and more) but the way it's packaged makes > > it unusa

Re: Apache log analyzer

2003-08-04 Thread Sami Haahtinen
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 04:04:19PM +0200, Marcin Sochacki wrote: > On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 08:33:53AM -0500, Steve Suehring wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 01:00:33PM +0300, Sami Haahtinen wrote: > > > analog > > > The only one that doesn't have packaging or application bugs, but then > > >

Re: Apache log analyzer

2003-08-04 Thread Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
On Monday 04 August 2003 12:00, Sami Haahtinen wrote: > webalizer > It works, but somehow it appears to ignore my ignore clauses and fails > to properly create indexes (this might be due to me, or something > else) I had problems with Ignore statemtns if there's already an incremental datab

Re: Apache log analyzer

2003-08-04 Thread Wade Richards
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 13:00:33 +0300, Sami Haahtinen writes: >awstats > It does the best job of these three, it collects just about every bit > of data that i can think of (and more) but the way it's packaged makes > it unusable on a default debian installation (you need to either > compromise on

Postfix and SMTP-AUTH once again

2003-08-04 Thread Richard Stevens
Hi, I'm trying to set up SMTP-Auth with postfix. The requirement is that System users can send mail independent of their connection to the internet so smtp-after pop or smtp-auth would be solutions. I'd prefer smtp-auth though. I'm using debian testing and installed postfix and postfix-tls. I s

Re: Apache log analyzer

2003-08-04 Thread Marcin Sochacki
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 08:33:53AM -0500, Steve Suehring wrote: > On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 01:00:33PM +0300, Sami Haahtinen wrote: > > analog > > The only one that doesn't have packaging or application bugs, but then > > again, it lacks behind on features. > > Can you elaborate on the features

unsubscribe

2003-08-04 Thread Erwin Bleeker / 2Fast
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Apache log analyzer

2003-08-04 Thread Steve Suehring
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 01:00:33PM +0300, Sami Haahtinen wrote: > analog > The only one that doesn't have packaging or application bugs, but then > again, it lacks behind on features. Can you elaborate on the features that analog is missing? Steve -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECT

Apache log analyzer

2003-08-04 Thread Sami Haahtinen
It seems that there are many analyzers out there and most of them do a good job, but there doesn't appear to be any that do a good job without bugging too much (either due to packaging or the application itself) Does anyone know if there exists a good analyzer that can be simply installed and appl