>do you have any crashes when virtualbox was not started and no virtualbox
>modules are loaded?
I was suffer another crash when I backup my data to the other partition on
LVM, when virtualbox not running
I set virtualbox modules to autoload on boot
>btw the logs after a crash not after a clean boo
Em 29/09/2011 18:58, Alex Schuster escreveu:
fra...@gmail.com writes:
> When I move the mouse down to the task bar area, the mouse pointer
> changes from the remote machine native shape to the local desktop shape,
> showing visually the fact that I can not click on any task bar icons.
Doe
Hi,
Is there a portage option that will limit the number of cores used
by emerge? For instance, in a chroot on a 12 core machine I want to
limit emerge to not using more than 3 cores?
If possible, I'd also like to limit the total disk bandwidth
consumption during emerge. For instance, when u
Mark Knecht writes:
> Hi,
>Is there a portage option that will limit the number of cores used
> by emerge? For instance, in a chroot on a 12 core machine I want to
> limit emerge to not using more than 3 cores?
I don't think there is a portage option for that. Perhaps you could use
schedtool
Mark Knecht wrote:
Hi,
Is there a portage option that will limit the number of cores used
by emerge? For instance, in a chroot on a 12 core machine I want to
limit emerge to not using more than 3 cores?
If possible, I'd also like to limit the total disk bandwidth
consumption during emerg
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Dale wrote:
> Mark Knecht wrote:
>> Is there a portage option that will limit the number of cores used
>> by emerge? For instance, in a chroot on a 12 core machine I want to
>> limit emerge to not using more than 3 cores?
> On my machine, even if I tell emerge
Michael Mol wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Dale wrote:
Mark Knecht wrote:
Is there a portage option that will limit the number of cores used
by emerge? For instance, in a chroot on a 12 core machine I want to
limit emerge to not using more than 3 cores?
On my machine, even if I
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Mark Knecht wrote:
> Hi,
> Is there a portage option that will limit the number of cores used
> by emerge? For instance, in a chroot on a 12 core machine I want to
> limit emerge to not using more than 3 cores?
>
> If possible, I'd also like to limit the total
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Paul Hartman
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Mark Knecht wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Is there a portage option that will limit the number of cores used
>> by emerge? For instance, in a chroot on a 12 core machine I want to
>> limit emerge to not using more than
Paul Hartman wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Mark Knecht wrote:
Hi,
Is there a portage option that will limit the number of cores used
by emerge? For instance, in a chroot on a 12 core machine I want to
limit emerge to not using more than 3 cores?
If possible, I'd also like to l
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Dale wrote:
> Well, this is interesting:
>
> root@fireball # emerge -1av kate
> ionice: bad prio class -3
> * PORTAGE_IONICE_COMMAND returned 1
> * See the make.conf(5) man page for PORTAGE_IONICE_COMMAND usage
> instructions.
>
> When I went to copy this, I noti
Paul Hartman wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Dale wrote:
Well, this is interesting:
root@fireball # emerge -1av kate
ionice: bad prio class -3
* PORTAGE_IONICE_COMMAND returned 1
* See the make.conf(5) man page for PORTAGE_IONICE_COMMAND usage
instructions.
When I went to copy thi
2011/9/27 Jesús J. Guerrero Botella :
> Check that the consolekit service is also on at bootup.
>
> Besides that, the udisks, upower, consolekit, policykit and udev flags
> apply here. Check they are on, particularly for kde-base/kdelibs
> (emerge -pv kdelibs).
All are enabled.
> What kdelibs (an
Andrey Moshbear wrote:
2011/9/27 Jesús J. Guerrero Botella:
Check that the consolekit service is also on at bootup.
Besides that, the udisks, upower, consolekit, policykit and udev flags
apply here. Check they are on, particularly for kde-base/kdelibs
(emerge -pv kdelibs).
All are enabled.
W
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:15:16 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
> > If your MAKEOPTS is -j3 then it's not going to use more than 3 cores
> > at a time but it will touch all 12 cores throughout the process
> > because of the normal load balancing. If you want it to use only 3
> > specific cores, you would n
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 16:34:36 -0400, Andrey Moshbear wrote:
> Also, recurring errors in the form of "Failed to execute program
> /usr/libexec/dbus-daemon-launch-helper: Success", which is determined
> to be EPERM, which is probably due to Bad Things in policykit.
This one caused m,y hotplugging to
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:15:16 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>> > If your MAKEOPTS is -j3 then it's not going to use more than 3 cores
>> > at a time but it will touch all 12 cores throughout the process
>> > because of the normal load balancing.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Mark Knecht wrote:
> OK, my bad for confusing the two. Currently make.conf in the chroot says:
>
> MAKEOPTS="-j3"
>
> and when I run emerge in the chroot it's typically
>
> emerge -DuN -j2 @world
>
> so I think that's about right, or would hope it is anyway. If you
>>> svn can restrict access to directories
>>>
>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2288810/how-to-restrict-svn-repository-user-account-to-one-directory
>>
>>That would be perfect if it allowed access per file instead of per
>>directory. I thought about re-arranging the layout to accommodate
>>t
> I'm not sure if you are overcomplicating this by trying to use Unix
> permission. Have you instead considered webdav? You can restrict this to
> particular (apache) users/groups, directories, files. It also uses lockfiles
> so with two users editing a file simultaneously will cause a warning w
>>> For some reason I thought SFTP would provide access control but now
>>> I'm thinking it's just like SSH in that access control is based on
>>> file ownership and permissions? If that's the case, can anyone think
>>> of a better way to control remote access to my files than chmod/chown?
>>
>> A
On 09/30/2011 07:59 PM, Grant wrote:
>
> Thanks for that. I haven't thought it all the way through, but if
> Unix ownership and permissions aren't granular enough and subversion's
> path-based authorization won't work, I will need to use ACLs. I think
> both subversion's path-based authorization
On Oct 1, 2011 7:26 AM, "Michael Orlitzky" wrote:
>
> On 09/30/2011 07:59 PM, Grant wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for that. I haven't thought it all the way through, but if
> > Unix ownership and permissions aren't granular enough and subversion's
> > path-based authorization won't work, I will need to u
23 matches
Mail list logo
