On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 08:28:48PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On 06/08/2013 02:35 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Well, you're defining something as 'bad behaviour' fairly arbitrarily -
> > or at least controversially: not everyone agrees with your definition.
>
> Speaking as a former sysadmin re
On Sun, 2013-06-09 at 09:24 +0930, Glen Turner wrote:
> Kickstart is fine for centrally managed devices. They've got experienced
> sysadmins who don't mind getting dirty with configuration files.
>
> The real kicker is people who manage their own device: not just BYOD
> but also part-time sysadmin
On 06/08/2013 02:35 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-06-08 at 09:25 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
>
>> Its not quite like this. What I need is the OS to be well behaved under
>> normal
>> conditions so that when problems come along they are easily spotted. Fedora
>> has been a fairly well
On 06/08/2013 10:29 AM, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Saturday, June 08, 2013 10:13:45 AM Doug Ledford wrote:
>> Yes, but none of these results show the .12s time that your first
>> noatime test run showed in your original post. If you are now saying
>> that atime is faster than noatime by about .005 to
Kickstart is fine for centrally managed devices. They've got experienced
sysadmins who don't mind getting dirty with configuration files.
The real kicker is people who manage their own device: not just BYOD
but also part-time sysadmins who can't run the corporate distribution.
These people can suc
On Sat, 2013-06-08 at 09:25 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
> Its not quite like this. What I need is the OS to be well behaved under
> normal
> conditions so that when problems come along they are easily spotted. Fedora
> has been a fairly well behaved OS over the years. I have had to get a few
> a
On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 09:53:39AM -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
> No real difference between them.
Make sure that you're testing this on a partition mounted with
strictatime.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.
On Saturday, June 08, 2013 10:13:45 AM Doug Ledford wrote:
> Yes, but none of these results show the .12s time that your first
> noatime test run showed in your original post. If you are now saying
> that atime is faster than noatime by about .005 to .010s, then these
> results seem to show that.
On 06/08/2013 10:10 AM, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Saturday, June 08, 2013 09:57:03 AM Doug Ledford wrote:
>> Bad test. The first run took the hit for getting the file info into
>> page cache, after that, everything was run from cache and you got the
>> second result above and the results below. You
On Saturday, June 08, 2013 09:57:03 AM Doug Ledford wrote:
> Bad test. The first run took the hit for getting the file info into
> page cache, after that, everything was run from cache and you got the
> second result above and the results below. You have to make sure that
> from run to run the ca
On 06/08/2013 09:53 AM, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Saturday, June 08, 2013 09:34:22 AM Steve Grubb wrote:
>> Does opening with noatime really make a measurable difference (assuming it
>> worked)? I suspect not since what we have now is 2 syscalls. It would
>> probably be faster to load icons without
On Saturday, June 08, 2013 09:34:22 AM Steve Grubb wrote:
> Does opening with noatime really make a measurable difference (assuming it
> worked)? I suspect not since what we have now is 2 syscalls. It would
> probably be faster to load icons without trying to set NOATIME.
Answering my own questi
On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 09:34:22AM -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > Other than a heuristic based on whether a path is in the user's home
> > directory or not, the only way to avoid this is to stat before opening -
> > and that's obviously prone to failure.
> Does opening with noatime really make a mea
On Saturday, June 08, 2013 06:36:38 AM Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 05:24:30PM -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > Hmm...sounds like kernel change. But in the meantime, most of the
> > offenders I see seem to have something to do with loading icons
>
> Sounds like code that doesn't di
On Saturday, June 08, 2013 06:33:11 AM Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 07:03:24PM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > On 7 June 2013 12:29, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > So why not add a mechanism to permit applications to indicate that
> > > certain accesses they make should be
Compose started at Sat Jun 8 09:15:02 UTC 2013
Broken deps for x86_64
--
[deltacloud-core]
deltacloud-core-rhevm-1.1.3-1.fc19.noarch requires rubygem(rbovirt) >=
0:0.0.18
[dragonegg]
dragonegg-3.1-19.fc19.x86_64 requires gcc
Compose started at Sat Jun 8 08:15:03 UTC 2013
Broken deps for x86_64
--
[bind10]
bind10-1.0.0-3.fc20.i686 requires liblog4cplus-1.1.so.5
bind10-1.0.0-3.fc20.x86_64 requires liblog4cplus-1.1.so.5()(64bit)
bind10-dhcp-
On Dom, 2013-06-02 at 20:56 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Ter, 2013-05-07 at 14:07 +0300, Oron Peled wrote:
> > On Wednesday 01 May 2013 22:21:20 Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 03:00:34AM +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591
- Original Message -
> From: "David Malcolm"
> Sent: Friday, June 7, 2013 6:01:48 PM
> * python-sqlparse
> * python3-postgresql
Taken.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
19 matches
Mail list logo
