On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Colin Watson wrote:
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 05:05:27PM +0200, Mattias Wadenstein wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Santiago Garcia Mantinan wrote:
On the other hand, I really think gluck is not the machine we should
be using to produce all this, it's always overloaded and seems to
[ Note CC: and Reply-To: to d-project ]
On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 03:25:03PM +0200, Mattias Wadenstein wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Colin Watson wrote:
It's not usually desperately loaded, although occasionally a big spam
run can cause issues. It's probably less bad than gluck, although I
think I
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 05:34:37PM +0200, Santiago Garcia Mantinan wrote:
Sorry to everybody for not fixing this sooner, the thing is that lately I've
been so busy with other stuff that I didn't find the time to read the list,
otherwise I would have realised about this problem and how important
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Santiago Garcia Mantinan wrote:
On the other hand, I really think gluck is not the machine we should be
using to produce all this, it's always overloaded and seems to struggle when
it comes to disk access, something we do a lot when producing our images,
even using jte.
So,
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 05:05:27PM +0200, Mattias Wadenstein wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Santiago Garcia Mantinan wrote:
On the other hand, I really think gluck is not the machine we should
be using to produce all this, it's always overloaded and seems to
struggle when it comes to disk access,
I seem to remember some vague mentions of spohr being a good
candidate, but this is old info and I don't know if it is still
correct, especially since it works as bugs.d.o now. Word is that it is
pretty idle though.
It's not usually desperately loaded, although occasionally a big spam
6 matches
Mail list logo
