Wassup debian-ports
I love him to death but our sex life sucked
Belina Dubuc
http://smokebiz.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 10:06:11PM -0400, Tom Evans wrote:
I have done (and still do raid5) without performance impact (especially
what I saw when the card was in a different slot).
I will redo that array as raid5 to see if it makes a difference - I know
software raid is expensive, just
On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 09:38:43PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
I am running a build right now.
It built on my machine. So here is the state of my machine:
kernel: 2.6.18.dfsg.1-13etch2
cpu: Alpha EV56 (21164A) 433MHz.
running unstable in a chroot, with stable on the main system. Did the
Hi Lennart,
Would you like me to try putting the new 2.6.22 kernel on and building
under that?
if it is not too much work for you, yes, I would appreciate that.
Kind regards,
Joachim
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 04:56:02PM +0200, Joachim Reichel wrote:
if it is not too much work for you, yes, I would appreciate that.
I will give it a shot.
--
Len Sorensen
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I turned down the max rebuild speed quite a bit and it generates a raid-6
array without killing the machine (and in shorter time than when the limit
is set at the default).
It seems like the resync process is so greedy for bandwidth that it
actually hurts itself if the CPU power is not there to
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 12:59:25PM -0400, tom wrote:
I turned down the max rebuild speed quite a bit and it generates a raid-6
array without killing the machine (and in shorter time than when the limit
is set at the default).
It seems like the resync process is so greedy for bandwidth that
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 12:44:56PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
I will give it a shot.
Build fails running 2.6.22, or rather the test fails.
Running 'LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/root/cgal-3.3.1/debian/tmp/usr/lib
/root/cgal-3.3.1/debian/tests/rounding_modes' returns:
default: ERROR
get/set: ERROR
ZERO
¡Tengo nueva dirección de correo!Ahora puedes escribirme a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- RICHARD OPENE
Hi,
Build fails running 2.6.22, or rather the test fails.
Running 'LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/root/cgal-3.3.1/debian/tmp/usr/lib
/root/cgal-3.3.1/debian/tests/rounding_modes' returns:
default: ERROR
get/set: ERROR
ZERO
zero : ERROR
ZERO
+inf : ERROR
ZERO
-inf : ERROR
ZERO
near :
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 11:20:21PM +0200, Joachim Reichel wrote:
this is exactly the same result that I get on Uwe's EV56 without and
with math_emu. I'm not in the position to discuss whether math_emu
should be a module or built in.
Using which kernel?
Your conclusion seems wrong since the
I also see an indication that if you call gcc with the -mieee option, it
will generate code that runs on any alpha correctly, without relying on
the kernel to solve the problem for it.
Your conclusion seems wrong since the test is built with -mieee
-mfp-rounding-mode=d -frounding-math.
12 matches
Mail list logo
