Re: New machine for shitbox / wiki system

2008-07-08 Thread Thomas Schwinge
Hello! On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 02:16:41AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 10:56:17PM -0400, Barry deFreese wrote: I'm still a little concerned about the HD but I'm not sure how much trouble it would be to get it up on a new one. I'm up for suggestions, etc.

Re: New machine for shitbox

2008-07-08 Thread Thomas Schwinge
Hello! On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 12:57:27PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: Dani Doni, le Sat 05 Jul 2008 13:52:07 +0200, a écrit : Maybe I am wrong, but updates on wiki content should trigger little bursts of activity, not sustained periods of 100% cpu load. The wiki engine regenerates all

Re: New machine for shitbox / wiki system

2008-07-08 Thread Samuel Thibault
Thomas Schwinge, le Tue 08 Jul 2008 09:41:20 +0200, a écrit : Not sure what the best approach is. Ideally, they should run in two distinct VMs sharing the hardware :-) Yes. That's also what I'd suggest. There'd as well be the plus of other people being able to reboot/recover hung

Re: New machine for shitbox / wiki system

2008-07-08 Thread Samuel Thibault
Barry deFreese, le Tue 08 Jul 2008 12:28:57 -0400, a écrit : By working Debian system do you mean Debian GNU/Linux or a Debian Hurd system? A GNU/Linux system, since gnumach does not support running as dom0. Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of

Re: New machine for shitbox

2008-07-05 Thread Dani Doni
On 7/5/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi folks, On the other hand, the wiki seems to need a fast machine, so using it for the wiki exclusively would be a waste... Not sure what the best approach is. Ideally, they should run in two distinct VMs sharing the hardware :-)

Re: New machine for shitbox

2008-07-05 Thread Samuel Thibault
Dani Doni, le Sat 05 Jul 2008 13:21:29 +0200, a écrit : On 7/5/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi folks, On the other hand, the wiki seems to need a fast machine, so using it for the wiki exclusively would be a waste... Not sure what the best approach is. Ideally, they

Re: New machine for shitbox

2008-07-05 Thread Dani Doni
On 7/5/08, Samuel Thibault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dani Doni, le Sat 05 Jul 2008 13:21:29 +0200, a écrit : On 7/5/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi folks, On the other hand, the wiki seems to need a fast machine, so using it for the wiki exclusively would be a

Re: New machine for shitbox

2008-07-05 Thread Samuel Thibault
Dani Doni, le Sat 05 Jul 2008 13:52:07 +0200, a écrit : On 7/5/08, Samuel Thibault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dani Doni, le Sat 05 Jul 2008 13:21:29 +0200, a écrit : On 7/5/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi folks, On the other hand, the wiki seems to need a fast

Re: New machine for shitbox

2008-07-05 Thread Dani Doni
On 7/5/08, Samuel Thibault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dani Doni, le Sat 05 Jul 2008 13:52:07 +0200, a écrit : On 7/5/08, Samuel Thibault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dani Doni, le Sat 05 Jul 2008 13:21:29 +0200, a écrit : On 7/5/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi

Re: New machine for shitbox

2008-07-04 Thread olafBuddenhagen
Hi, On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 10:56:17PM -0400, Barry deFreese wrote: I'm still a little concerned about the HD but I'm not sure how much trouble it would be to get it up on a new one. I'm up for suggestions, etc. Shouldn't be a problem I think... Just copy the whole disk :-) I also have