On Saturday, July 30, 2016 06:38:01 AM Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 6:24 AM, Alan McKinnon
wrote:
> > On 29/07/2016 22:58, Mick wrote:
> >> Interesting article explaining why Uber are moving away from PostgreSQL.
> >> I am
> >> running both DBs on different desktop PCs for akonad
On Sunday 31 Jul 2016 18:52:23 Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
--->8
> Just out of curiosity what are the differences between the original genlop
> calculation and yours, and how long did it actually take? and what is the
> output of 'genlop -t '.
$ genlop -t gcc -f /mnt/rescue/var/log/emerge.log
usin
On 08/01/2016 01:45 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
On Sunday, July 31, 2016 03:37:55 PM Jörg Schaible wrote:
Hi,
for my backups I use a 3TB USB drive (one big ext4 partition) without any
problems. Just plug in the cable, mount it and perform the backup. The
partition (sdi1) is detected an mountable wi
Hi all.
In thys Gento system, there are packages that still need Qt-4, while newest
KDE, for instance, needs Qt-5.
Even inserting entries in "/etc/portage/package.use" for the packages that
need qt4, the emerge still fails, arguing that the package needs Qt-4.
On this system, "qtchooser" has nev
On 08/01/2016 02:16 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
On Saturday, July 30, 2016 06:38:01 AM Rich Freeman wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 6:24 AM, Alan McKinnon
wrote:
On 29/07/2016 22:58, Mick wrote:
Interesting article explaining why Uber are moving away from PostgreSQL.
I am
running both DBs on diff
On Sunday 31 Jul 2016 23:31:29 you wrote:
> On Sunday 31 Jul 2016 23:18:00 Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> > On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 19:40:37 +0100 Mick wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > I am dipping my toe into cross-compile territory, in order to build i686
> > > binaries for a 32bit box, which is too old
On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Peter Humphrey
wrote:
>
> How is it possible for genlop's reported ETA to increase while its time
> spent so far also increases? Could the concurrent gnutls merging have
> affected it? Surely not.
I've noticed the same oddity recently while building a couple of
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:16 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
>
> Check the link posted by Douglas.
> Ubers article has some misunderstandings about the architecture with
> conclusions drawn that are, at least also, caused by their database design and
> usage.
I've read it. I don't think it actually alleg
On Monday 01 Aug 2016 10:03:53 John Blinka wrote:
> Glad to see that someone else has experienced the same thing, and I'm not
> going crazy (although some might argue this is hardly proof...)
No, but it'll do as a bit of evidence pro tem. :)
--
Rgds
Peter
On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 07:40:37PM +0100, Mick wrote
> Hi All,
>
> I am dipping my toe into cross-compile territory, in order to build i686
> binaries for a 32bit box, which is too old to do its own emerges. I am using
> an amd64 box which is significantly faster to do all the heavy lifting and
On Monday 01 Aug 2016 14:51:02 Mick wrote:
> Given Andrew's steer I had another look and found this guide:
>
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:AMD64/32-bit_Chroot_Guide
>
> Is this approach still valid, or have things moved on since this article
> was authored (2012) and different configura
On Monday 01 Aug 2016 11:23:03 waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
> I recommend going with one of 3 "cheats"...
>
> 1) A 32-bit chroot in a 64-bit machine
>
> 2) A QEMU (or VirtualBox) 32-bit guest on a 64-bit host
>
> 3) If you have a spare 64-bit machine, install 32-bit Gentoo on it
>
> I use
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/01/2016 08:17 AM, Francisco Ares wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> In thys Gento system, there are packages that still need Qt-4, while newest
> KDE, for instance, needs Qt-5.
>
> Even inserting entries in "/etc/portage/package.use" for the packages that
On Monday 01 Aug 2016 16:31:18 Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Monday 01 Aug 2016 14:51:02 Mick wrote:
> > Given Andrew's steer I had another look and found this guide:
> >
> > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:AMD64/32-bit_Chroot_Guide
> >
> > Is this approach still valid, or have things moved on
On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 04:46:24PM +0100, Mick wrote
> On Monday 01 Aug 2016 11:23:03 waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
>
> > I recommend going with one of 3 "cheats"...
> >
> > 1) A 32-bit chroot in a 64-bit machine
> >
> > 2) A QEMU (or VirtualBox) 32-bit guest on a 64-bit host
> >
> > 3) If you
On Monday 01 Aug 2016 16:49:15 Mick wrote:
> Thank you Peter, I seem to have posted a few seconds before I received your
> message. From what you're showing above I seem to have not performed a
> correct mount of the chroot fs. I better rinse and repeat ...
Hmm ... I followed the handbook this
On Monday 01 Aug 2016 12:19:41 waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 04:46:24PM +0100, Mick wrote
>
> > On Monday 01 Aug 2016 11:23:03 waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
> > > I recommend going with one of 3 "cheats"...
> > >
> > > 1) A 32-bit chroot in a 64-bit machine
> > >
> > >
On Monday, August 01, 2016 08:43:49 AM james wrote:
> On 08/01/2016 02:16 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 30, 2016 06:38:01 AM Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 6:24 AM, Alan McKinnon
> >
> > wrote:
> >>> On 29/07/2016 22:58, Mick wrote:
> Interesting article exp
On Monday, August 01, 2016 11:01:28 AM Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:16 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > Check the link posted by Douglas.
> > Ubers article has some misunderstandings about the architecture with
> > conclusions drawn that are, at least also, caused by their database de
On Monday 01 Aug 2016 17:32:58 Mick wrote:
> On Monday 01 Aug 2016 12:19:41 waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
> > > What chroot() actually does is fairly simple, it modifies pathname
> > > lookups for a process and its children so that any reference to a path
> > > starting '/' will effectively have th
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 12:49 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On Monday, August 01, 2016 08:43:49 AM james wrote:
>
>> Sure this part is only related to
>> transaction processing as there was much more to the "five 9s" legacy,
>> but imho, that is the heart of what was the precursor to ACID property's
>>
Hi,
I've a question about using SATA's SSD over the SAS controller on the
workstation motherboards.
I didn't find any benchmark comparing the CPU/Memory load, for example.
I suppose, that installing a SSD over the SAS controller, my CPU/Memory
load will be lower and I will get better performance
On Monday 01 Aug 2016 18:57:53 Mick wrote:
> On Monday 01 Aug 2016 17:32:58 Mick wrote:
> > On Monday 01 Aug 2016 12:19:41 waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
> > > > What chroot() actually does is fairly simple, it modifies pathname
> > > > lookups for a process and its children so that any reference to
On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 10:21:20PM +0100, Mick wrote:
>
> I think libreoffice, chromium and firefox will be compiled in a chroot from
> now
> on and then emerged as binaries. This is the difference for libreoffice:
>
> Sat Aug 29 06:09:09 2015 >>> app-office/libreoffice-4.4.4.3
>m
On 01/08/2016 17:01, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:16 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
>
> Check the link posted by Douglas.
> Ubers article has some misunderstandings about the architecture with
> conclusions drawn that are, at least also, caused by their database design and
> usage.
I'
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 7:18 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
> So the original article very much seems to have been written with a skewed
> bias and wrong focus. That's bias as in "shifted to one side as used in
> math" not bias as in "opinionated asshat beating some special drum"
>
Well, I wouldn't sa
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 1:31 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On Monday, August 01, 2016 11:01:28 AM Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Neither my employer nor the big software provider
>> in question is likely to attract top-notch DB talent (indeed, mine has
>> steadily gotten rid of anybody who knows how to do anyt
On 08/01/2016 11:49 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
On Monday, August 01, 2016 08:43:49 AM james wrote:
On 08/01/2016 02:16 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
On Saturday, July 30, 2016 06:38:01 AM Rich Freeman wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 6:24 AM, Alan McKinnon
wrote:
On 29/07/2016 22:58, Mick wrote:
Int
On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 01:11:24AM +0200, Jeremi Piotrowski wrote
> Does it make sense to compile your own versions of these packages
> and then binary merge, when portage already contains binary ebuilds
> for these packages? (firefox-bin/libreoffice-bin/google-chrome)
I've got an underpowered
On 08/01/2016 01:03 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 12:49 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
On Monday, August 01, 2016 08:43:49 AM james wrote:
Sure this part is only related to
transaction processing as there was much more to the "five 9s" legacy,
but imho, that is the heart of what was
On Tuesday 02 Aug 2016 00:33:57 waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 01:11:24AM +0200, Jeremi Piotrowski wrote
>
> > Does it make sense to compile your own versions of these packages
> > and then binary merge, when portage already contains binary ebuilds
> > for these packages? (
31 matches
Mail list logo
