Tanner Lovelace wrote:
Out of curiosity, why are you using ext3 for a system like that when you
admit it has serious limitations? Why not a filesystem like XFS who's
maximum file systems size is 8 exabytes[1] (16 terrabytes on 32 bit linux
systems because of os limitations).
Because ext3 is
IMHO,the crickets gives the user two possible answers:
1. The problem is too simple for anyone to bother answering.
2. The problem is too complex and no one knows the answer.
Don't take it so personally. A lot of times it just means you
asked the question at the wrong time... like when
Our company has only 56 people. Just in the last 3 months we have
added 2 servers with 1.2TB each and a 16 slot LTO3 autoloader. One is
a PE 2950 w/ 16GB ram, 2 x quad core Xeon, running VMware ESX Vi3 and
the other runs ESX Ranger Pro and Backup Exec. Prior to this, our
largest server storage
I'll vote for Thursdays... one more guitar class this month and then
I'm dropping it for a while. :)
On 2/16/07, Kevin Otte [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there interest in resuming our nightly rounds of BZFlag? We used to
do 21:15 Eastern.
-- Kevin
--
TriLUG mailing list:
On 2/18/07, Magnus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tanner Lovelace wrote:
Out of curiosity, why are you using ext3 for a system like that when you
admit it has serious limitations? Why not a filesystem like XFS who's
maximum file systems size is 8 exabytes[1] (16 terrabytes on 32 bit linux
systems
Robert Dale wrote:
Technically, that's what the installer gives for formatting options.
The installer (the kernel running) supports JFS, XFS, and possibly
others, and will allow you to install to those partitiions.
And if I have any issues with the filesystem, Red Hat will tell me to
pound
On 2/18/07, Magnus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert Dale wrote:
Technically, that's what the installer gives for formatting options.
The installer (the kernel running) supports JFS, XFS, and possibly
others, and will allow you to install to those partitiions.
And if I have any issues with
FYI
Joe
--
Independant, Wed Feb 19, 2007, p18
How about a raffle to pay for Google Incentives
Kirk Ross
You might think that the rest of the country is looking
askance at all the bristling over Google's incentives for
its new server farm in Lenoir, but as Ed Cone recently
pointed
Warning, this is one of those Aaron emails that goes on for ever. I
actually wrote it in two sittings, it took so long. If you're not
interested in the internals of Google compensation, you may safely stop
reading now.
bak wrote:
Bear with me for a minute, I haven't discussed this with more
Aaron, thank you so much for your thoughtful contributions to this
thread. I've personally found it very interesting to read, from both sides.
Just an unsolicited $0.02:
Aaron S. Joyner wrote:
So, base salary isn't what one might typically expect. And even from
the offer letter, it's
Magnus wrote:
Aaron, thank you so much for your thoughtful contributions to this
thread. I've personally found it very interesting to read, from both
sides.
Just an unsolicited $0.02:
Aaron S. Joyner wrote:
So, base salary isn't what one might typically expect. And even from
the offer
bak wrote:
Magnus wrote:
Aaron, thank you so much for your thoughtful contributions to this
thread. I've personally found it very interesting to read, from both
sides.
Just an unsolicited $0.02:
Aaron S. Joyner wrote:
So, base salary isn't what one might typically expect. And even from
Aaron S. Joyner wrote:
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was simply saying that I did take a hard look
at the base salary, and the other unlikely-to-change benefits of the
team I would be working with, etc - and decided that was enough for me
to make the decision to move to CA and work for Google. It
bak wrote:
Aaron S. Joyner wrote:
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was simply saying that I did take a hard look
at the base salary, and the other unlikely-to-change benefits of the
team I would be working with, etc - and decided that was enough for me
to make the decision to move to CA and work
14 matches
Mail list logo
