On 09/20/2014 09:41 PM, Robert Nichols wrote:
On 09/20/2014 08:30 PM, jd1008 wrote:
/ posted it to the ext3 maling list (turns out they also know ext4)
and they admitted about undocumented effects of using the -S
option, and that one must NEVER use it unless they know the intrinsics
of the FS s
On 09/20/2014 08:30 PM, jd1008 wrote:
/ posted it to the ext3 maling list (turns out they also know ext4)
and they admitted about undocumented effects of using the -S
option, and that one must NEVER use it unless they know the intrinsics
of the FS so well, that the user knows exactly what effects
On 09/20/2014 06:30 PM, jd1008 wrote:
/ posted it to the ext3 maling list (turns out they also know ext4)
and they admitted about undocumented effects of using the -S
option, and that one must NEVER use it unless they know the intrinsics
of the FS so well, that the user knows exactly what effects
On 09/20/2014 07:15 PM, Robert Nichols wrote:
On 09/19/2014 08:16 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Sep 19, 2014, at 11:49 AM, jd1008 wrote:
On 09/19/2014 08:39 AM, Robert Nichols wrote:
On 09/18/2014 10:57 PM, jd1008 wrote:
I ran mkfs.ext3 -S /dev/sdc7
then ran fsck.ext3 -y /dev/sdc7
it blew
On 09/19/2014 08:16 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Sep 19, 2014, at 11:49 AM, jd1008 wrote:
On 09/19/2014 08:39 AM, Robert Nichols wrote:
On 09/18/2014 10:57 PM, jd1008 wrote:
I ran mkfs.ext3 -S /dev/sdc7
then ran fsck.ext3 -y /dev/sdc7
it blew away EVERYTHING :)
Back to square one and re-dd
On 09/20/2014 01:47 PM, Erik P. Olsen wrote:
I need help to understand what can be done to fix following:
I'm not sure what needs to be done in this case, but I do know that
these things happen now and then and that they generally get resolved in
a few days.
The one thing I don't understand
I need help to understand what can be done to fix following:
Dependency Resolution Errors:
Package: 1:openssl-1.0.1e-38.fc20.i686 (@/openssl-1.0.1e-38.fc20.i686)
Requires: openssl-libs(x86-32) = 1:1.0.1e-38.fc20
Removing: 1:openssl-libs-1.0.1e-38.fc20.i686
(@/openssl-libs-1.0.1e-38.fc20
On 09/20/2014 01:55 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 09/21/14 03:45, jd1008 wrote:
Often, I get these messages in /var/log/messages:
[ 8308.300906] perf interrupt took too long (2501 > 2500), lowering
kernel.perf_event_max_sample_rate to 5
Is there a way to disable the performance monitor ?
ech
On 09/21/14 03:45, jd1008 wrote:
> Often, I get these messages in /var/log/messages:
>
> [ 8308.300906] perf interrupt took too long (2501 > 2500), lowering
> kernel.perf_event_max_sample_rate to 5
>
> Is there a way to disable the performance monitor ?
echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/perf_cpu_time
Often, I get these messages in /var/log/messages:
[ 8308.300906] perf interrupt took too long (2501 > 2500), lowering
kernel.perf_event_max_sample_rate to 5
Is there a way to disable the performance monitor ?
Thanx.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or cha
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Michael D. Setzer II
wrote:
> Ran the update today, and saw the new kernels, but then had about 2/3 of
> the machines have the same issue with just getting a blank screen after the
> reboot and trying to load the kernel as I had seen with the 3.16.2-200 kernel.
>
Allegedly, on or about 19 September 2014, jd1008 sent:
> I was indeed eyed suspiciously by other cafe' clientele. They might
> have thought I was trying to hack into their computers. They must not
> be aware that the router isolates the lan clients from each other.
One might presume that a router
Allegedly, on or about 19 September 2014, jd1008 sent:
> Is there a way to ask youtube to select a different format of the
> video other than what it chooses by default?
As a general answer: Only if YouTube has multiple versions of the file.
For instance, some clips are only available in their o
On 09/19/2014 07:10 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 09/19/2014 04:13 AM, A.J. Bonnema wrote:
I have been experiencing a problem with reaching some websites. Example:
I can not reach http://en.wikipedia.org.
Have you tried pinging it from your fedora box? It responds here. If
it doesn't resolve corr
On 09/20/2014 03:28 AM, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> On 20.09.2014, Doug wrote:
>
>> First: Higher power does NOT increase noise in the signal. It just increases
>> the amount of
>> radio frequency energy in the general area, which may be "noise" to some
>> _other_ piece of equipment.
>
> Yes, you are
On 20.09.2014, Doug wrote:
> A better location will probably be somewhere up above all the clutter around
> your work-station.
> Try it up about head-height or higher, on a little bracket or shelf on the
> wall.
This is what I did some time ago and what worked for me.
Btw: I'm using an exter
On 20.09.2014, Doug wrote:
> First: Higher power does NOT increase noise in the signal. It just increases
> the amount of
> radio frequency energy in the general area, which may be "noise" to some
> _other_ piece of equipment.
Yes, you are right. I was imprecise. What I meant is that barely
i
17 matches
Mail list logo
