At 2002-05-08T01:56:57Z, Seneca [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
More RAM perhaps to bring down the swapping load?
I would if I could afford it, I can't even afford to buy lunch, much less
a pair of 16M DIMMs (and that would max out this laptop's memory). The
only memory laying around is
On Tue, 2002-05-07 at 21:32, Kirk Strauser wrote:
At 2002-05-08T01:56:57Z, Seneca [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
More RAM perhaps to bring down the swapping load?
I would if I could afford it, I can't even afford to buy lunch, much less
a pair of 16M DIMMs (and that would max out this
On Tue, 7 May 2002 21:56:57 -0400
Seneca [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would if I could afford it, I can't even afford to buy lunch, much
less a pair of 16M DIMMs (and that would max out this laptop's memory).
The only memory laying around is physically incompatible with my laptop.
Where are you
generally be considered a
| | maximum safe load average.
|
| I often run between .5 and 1 on my two machines (one desktop one
| laptop). One is my mail server, web server, desktop, and both are
| music boxes. When I'm not doing anything the load is less. The lower
| your load average
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 03:33:47PM -0400, Seneca wrote:
| On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 09:11:50PM -0500, dman wrote:
| What services is that system running? It sounds like you're trying to
| push the machine way too far. How powerful is it (CPU, RAM)?
|
| This system is my most powerful one. It's
On Wed, 2002-05-08 at 14:33, Seneca wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 09:11:50PM -0500, dman wrote:
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 09:55:17PM -0400, Seneca wrote:
| On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 06:03:39PM -0500, dman wrote:
| On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 10:15:36PM -0400, Seneca Cunningham wrote:
[snip]
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 03:14:04PM -0500, dman wrote:
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 03:33:47PM -0400, Seneca wrote:
| On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 09:11:50PM -0500, dman wrote:
| What services is that system running? It sounds like you're trying to
| push the machine way too far. How powerful is it
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 03:25:47PM -0500, Ron wrote:
On Wed, 2002-05-08 at 14:33, Seneca wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 09:11:50PM -0500, dman wrote:
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 09:55:17PM -0400, Seneca wrote:
| On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 06:03:39PM -0500, dman wrote:
| On Wed, May 01, 2002
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 05:25:11PM -0400, Seneca wrote:
| On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 03:25:47PM -0500, Ron wrote:
...
| P.S. - Confirmation messages are not a feature!
|
| They are when they meet the teacher's specifications: written in java,
| use AWT, are a class, and use buttons, frames, and
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 05:21:11PM -0500, dman wrote:
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 05:25:11PM -0400, Seneca wrote:
| On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 03:25:47PM -0500, Ron wrote:
...
| P.S. - Confirmation messages are not a feature!
|
| They are when they meet the teacher's specifications: written in
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 07:32:06PM -0400, Seneca wrote:
| On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 05:21:11PM -0500, dman wrote:
| On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 05:25:11PM -0400, Seneca wrote:
| | On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 03:25:47PM -0500, Ron wrote:
| ...
| | P.S. - Confirmation messages are not a feature!
| |
|
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 07:11:23PM -0500, dman wrote:
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 07:32:06PM -0400, Seneca wrote:
| On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 05:21:11PM -0500, dman wrote:
| On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 05:25:11PM -0400, Seneca wrote:
| | On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 03:25:47PM -0500, Ron wrote:
| ...
|
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 07:11:23PM -0500, dman wrote:
Actually, for compilation use jikes. It's written in C++ and is way
sleeker than javac (faster, lighter weight, better error messages).
Although, I say from experience, an utter pig to compile. :) gcc takes
over 100Mb of memory here to
On 0, Seneca [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 07:11:23PM -0500, dman wrote:
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 07:32:06PM -0400, Seneca wrote:
| On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 05:21:11PM -0500, dman wrote:
| On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 05:25:11PM -0400, Seneca wrote:
| | On Wed, May 08, 2002
be sitting mostly
Kirk idle. As another example, pretend you're running an RC5 or
no. load average refers to the average length of the run queue.
processes blocked on I/O are not on that queue.
to the OP: there's no such thing as a safe load average. however,
higher than normal load averages
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 08:17:11AM -1000, Joseph Dane wrote:
Kirk == Kirk Strauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Kirk Safe? I think you should be more interested in CPU states
Kirk than load average. For example, consider running 50 webserver
Kirk processes, all of which are in an I/O wait
Colin == Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Colin The load average refers to the average number of processes
Colin that are runnable or in uninterruptible sleep. The latter
Colin usually indicates I/O.
I did not know that. still, processes in uninterruptible sleep are
certainly waiting
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 09:18:01AM -1000, Joseph Dane wrote:
Colin == Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Colin The load average refers to the average number of processes
Colin that are runnable or in uninterruptible sleep. The latter
Colin usually indicates I/O.
I did not know
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 06:03:39PM -0500, dman wrote:
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 10:15:36PM -0400, Seneca Cunningham wrote:
| So, something I was wondering about would generally be considered a
| maximum safe load average.
I often run between .5 and 1 on my two machines (one desktop one
Any suggestions on how to cool this thing down (other than removing the
builtin keyboard and putting bags of ice on the heatsink (I can't afford
the ice or the external keyboard)). Other than a new computer or
upgraded hardware, I can't afford it.
More RAM perhaps to bring down the swapping
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 11:52:22AM +1000, John Griffiths wrote:
Any suggestions on how to cool this thing down (other than removing the
builtin keyboard and putting bags of ice on the heatsink (I can't afford
the ice or the external keyboard)). Other than a new computer or
upgraded hardware,
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 09:55:17PM -0400, Seneca wrote:
| On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 06:03:39PM -0500, dman wrote:
| On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 10:15:36PM -0400, Seneca Cunningham wrote:
|
| | So, something I was wondering about would generally be considered a
| | maximum safe load average
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 10:15:36PM -0400, Seneca Cunningham wrote:
| So, something I was wondering about would generally be considered a
| maximum safe load average.
I often run between .5 and 1 on my two machines (one desktop one
laptop). One is my mail server, web server, desktop, and both
At 2002-05-02T02:15:36Z, Seneca Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, something I was wondering about would generally be considered a
maximum safe load average. I have had some problems with some hardware
that look almost as if this machine wants to become a toaster (hopefully
, something I was wondering about would generally be considered a
maximum safe load average. I have had some problems with some hardware
that look almost as if this machine wants to become a toaster (hopefully
the hardware wasn't damaged, only confused, by the heat).
--
Seneca
[EMAIL PROTECTED
which, but I'm hoping external),
while the cards feel like they're at least 45.
So, something I was wondering about would generally be considered a
maximum safe load average. I have had some problems with some hardware
that look almost as if this machine wants to become a toaster (hopefully
26 matches
Mail list logo
