Jason Matthews wrote:
>
> So I have determined the trigger event for the "resets" in the response
> times. It appears that there is some sort of memory leak in the kernel. When
> memory utilization gets very high, I am not sure how high but it is around a
> few hundred bytes on the freelists with
So I have determined the trigger event for the "resets" in the response
times. It appears that there is some sort of memory leak in the kernel. When
memory utilization gets very high, I am not sure how high but it is around a
few hundred bytes on the freelists with zfs data near zero, the reset c
I am on the Apache Openoffice mailing list, and I can say that there are plans
for Solaris.
IMHO, and FWIW, the Apache group seems to be (or at least act like) a very large
organization. The feel of the group to me is that they are still getting their
ducks all lined up on many different fronts,
Hi Robbie,
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Robbie Crash wrote:
> If you want to use Fletcher, you need to use verify, as the likelihood of
> collisions is increased since Fletcher is not *random*. You don't really
> need to verify when using SHA256, and by default, SHA256 is used with
> dedup,
If you want to use Fletcher, you need to use verify, as the likelihood of
collisions is increased since Fletcher is not *random*. You don't really
need to verify when using SHA256, and by default, SHA256 is used with
dedup, not Fletcher. . More information about the checksumming and
trade-offs can
The future seems to be LibreOffice, but is OpenOffice really dead ?
OpenOffice is now an Apache incubating project hosted by the Apache foundation.
Someone know if people have plans to build future release for Solaris 11
x86/OpenIndiana ?
___
OpenInd
Jan,
I'm not sure that turning dedup or compression on is useful in your
particular situation.
Since the images are already compressed, re-compressing them only adds
cpu overhead without much benefit. Also, Since images will have little
opportunity for dedup (unless you tend to have multiple
Thank you for the replies.
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:33 PM, Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
> The obvious saying springs to mind: "RAID != backup". If you need your
> data to be safe, have two copies of it in two geographically separate
> locations running in two separate machines.
I've read about ECC/non
