do you have any crashes when virtualbox was not started and no virtualbox
modules are loaded?
I was suffer another crash when I backup my data to the other partition on
LVM, when virtualbox not running
I set virtualbox modules to autoload on boot
btw the logs after a crash not after a clean boot
Em 29/09/2011 18:58, Alex Schuster wo...@wonkology.org escreveu:
fra...@gmail.com writes:
When I move the mouse down to the task bar area, the mouse pointer
changes from the remote machine native shape to the local desktop shape,
showing visually the fact that I can not click on any task
Hi,
Is there a portage option that will limit the number of cores used
by emerge? For instance, in a chroot on a 12 core machine I want to
limit emerge to not using more than 3 cores?
If possible, I'd also like to limit the total disk bandwidth
consumption during emerge. For instance, when
Mark Knecht markkne...@gmail.com writes:
Hi,
Is there a portage option that will limit the number of cores used
by emerge? For instance, in a chroot on a 12 core machine I want to
limit emerge to not using more than 3 cores?
I don't think there is a portage option for that. Perhaps you
Mark Knecht wrote:
Hi,
Is there a portage option that will limit the number of cores used
by emerge? For instance, in a chroot on a 12 core machine I want to
limit emerge to not using more than 3 cores?
If possible, I'd also like to limit the total disk bandwidth
consumption during
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Mark Knecht wrote:
Is there a portage option that will limit the number of cores used
by emerge? For instance, in a chroot on a 12 core machine I want to
limit emerge to not using more than 3 cores?
On my machine, even if I
Michael Mol wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Mark Knecht wrote:
Is there a portage option that will limit the number of cores used
by emerge? For instance, in a chroot on a 12 core machine I want to
limit emerge to not using more than 3 cores?
On
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Mark Knecht markkne...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Is there a portage option that will limit the number of cores used
by emerge? For instance, in a chroot on a 12 core machine I want to
limit emerge to not using more than 3 cores?
If possible, I'd also like to
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Paul Hartman
paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Mark Knecht markkne...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Is there a portage option that will limit the number of cores used
by emerge? For instance, in a chroot on a 12 core machine I
Paul Hartman wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Mark Knechtmarkkne...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Is there a portage option that will limit the number of cores used
by emerge? For instance, in a chroot on a 12 core machine I want to
limit emerge to not using more than 3 cores?
If
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, this is interesting:
root@fireball # emerge -1av kate
ionice: bad prio class -3
* PORTAGE_IONICE_COMMAND returned 1
* See the make.conf(5) man page for PORTAGE_IONICE_COMMAND usage
instructions.
When I went to copy
Paul Hartman wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, this is interesting:
root@fireball # emerge -1av kate
ionice: bad prio class -3
* PORTAGE_IONICE_COMMAND returned 1
* See the make.conf(5) man page for PORTAGE_IONICE_COMMAND usage
instructions.
2011/9/27 Jesús J. Guerrero Botella jesus.guerrero.bote...@gmail.com:
Check that the consolekit service is also on at bootup.
Besides that, the udisks, upower, consolekit, policykit and udev flags
apply here. Check they are on, particularly for kde-base/kdelibs
(emerge -pv kdelibs).
All are
Andrey Moshbear wrote:
2011/9/27 Jesús J. Guerrero Botellajesus.guerrero.bote...@gmail.com:
Check that the consolekit service is also on at bootup.
Besides that, the udisks, upower, consolekit, policykit and udev flags
apply here. Check they are on, particularly for kde-base/kdelibs
(emerge
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:15:16 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
If your MAKEOPTS is -j3 then it's not going to use more than 3 cores
at a time but it will touch all 12 cores throughout the process
because of the normal load balancing. If you want it to use only 3
specific cores, you would need to
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 16:34:36 -0400, Andrey Moshbear wrote:
Also, recurring errors in the form of Failed to execute program
/usr/libexec/dbus-daemon-launch-helper: Success, which is determined
to be EPERM, which is probably due to Bad Things in policykit.
This one caused m,y hotplugging to
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:15:16 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
If your MAKEOPTS is -j3 then it's not going to use more than 3 cores
at a time but it will touch all 12 cores throughout the process
because of the normal load
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Mark Knecht markkne...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, my bad for confusing the two. Currently make.conf in the chroot says:
MAKEOPTS=-j3
and when I run emerge in the chroot it's typically
emerge -DuN -j2 @world
so I think that's about right, or would hope it is
svn can restrict access to directories
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2288810/how-to-restrict-svn-repository-user-account-to-one-directory
That would be perfect if it allowed access per file instead of per
directory. I thought about re-arranging the layout to accommodate
that limitation
I'm not sure if you are overcomplicating this by trying to use Unix
permission. Have you instead considered webdav? You can restrict this to
particular (apache) users/groups, directories, files. It also uses lockfiles
so with two users editing a file simultaneously will cause a warning when
For some reason I thought SFTP would provide access control but now
I'm thinking it's just like SSH in that access control is based on
file ownership and permissions? If that's the case, can anyone think
of a better way to control remote access to my files than chmod/chown?
ACLs.
We went
On 09/30/2011 07:59 PM, Grant wrote:
Thanks for that. I haven't thought it all the way through, but if
Unix ownership and permissions aren't granular enough and subversion's
path-based authorization won't work, I will need to use ACLs. I think
both subversion's path-based authorization and
On Oct 1, 2011 7:26 AM, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote:
On 09/30/2011 07:59 PM, Grant wrote:
Thanks for that. I haven't thought it all the way through, but if
Unix ownership and permissions aren't granular enough and subversion's
path-based authorization won't work, I will
23 matches
Mail list logo
