El 14/01/15 a les 21.42, Mark Felder ha escrit:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015, at 09:16, Karl Pielorz wrote:
Hi,
This has been seen before e.g. see
https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-xen/2013-December/001825.html
We're now seeing this now we've started using 10.x boxes under
On 01/14/2015 15:42, Mark Felder wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015, at 09:16, Karl Pielorz wrote:
Hi,
This has been seen before e.g. see
https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-xen/2013-December/001825.html
We're now seeing this now we've started using 10.x boxes under XenServer
6.5
On 01/14/2015 17:46, Karl Pielorz wrote:
--On 14 January 2015 15:48:47 -0500 Adam McDougall
mcdou...@egr.msu.edu wrote:
I really thought this was fixed in Creedence alphas that I tested... I
still have those test systems up but I need to make a test environment
for 6.5. Are you using AMD
--On 14 January 2015 15:48:47 -0500 Adam McDougall mcdou...@egr.msu.edu
wrote:
I really thought this was fixed in Creedence alphas that I tested... I
still have those test systems up but I need to make a test environment
for 6.5. Are you using AMD or Intel? I don't know if it makes a
Hi,
This has been seen before e.g. see
https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-xen/2013-December/001825.html
We're now seeing this now we've started using 10.x boxes under XenServer 6.5
Is there any work around for it?
The 'hit' rate for us seems to be quite high (+70%?) i.e. the clock
