On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 08:48 -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Patent law in the US is based on section 113 of the United States
> Constitution, and patents
> are not going away.
Merkey aren't you supposed to be a lawyer? Unless you do some funky
concatenation of articles and sections you can't
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 08:48 -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Patent law in the US is based on section 113 of the United States
Constitution, and patents
are not going away.
Merkey aren't you supposed to be a lawyer? Unless you do some funky
concatenation of articles and sections you can't find
(as in my case).
Trever
On Sat, 2005-01-29 at 12:57 -0700, Trever L. Adams wrote:
> For the record, this has nothing to do with my crash. Mine still crashes
> all the time if I try to save a new document.
>
> Trever
>
> On Sat, 2005-01-29 at 14:25 -0500, Jon Smirl wrote:
>
For the record, this has nothing to do with my crash. Mine still crashes
all the time if I try to save a new document.
Trever
On Sat, 2005-01-29 at 14:25 -0500, Jon Smirl wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 13:02:51 +, Richard Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:49:16
For the record, this has nothing to do with my crash. Mine still crashes
all the time if I try to save a new document.
Trever
On Sat, 2005-01-29 at 14:25 -0500, Jon Smirl wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 13:02:51 +, Richard Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:49:16 +,
I didn't look at the trace. My only problem is in saving new files. I
can copy an old one, rename it and start, empty it and save fine. I just
can't save new ones.
Anyway, I hope this gets fixed. I am running pure rawhide Fedora Core,
just so you know... latest of everything.
Trever
On Thu,
I am seeing crashes in FC4 rawhide with the 2.6.xx kernel in FC4 rawhide
as well. However, I only see it if I start, and then try to save the
document (without or without changes).. i.e. saving a new document... I
may see this under saving as as well, but I rarely do that so I don't
know. (AMD
I am seeing crashes in FC4 rawhide with the 2.6.xx kernel in FC4 rawhide
as well. However, I only see it if I start, and then try to save the
document (without or without changes).. i.e. saving a new document... I
may see this under saving as as well, but I rarely do that so I don't
know. (AMD
I didn't look at the trace. My only problem is in saving new files. I
can copy an old one, rename it and start, empty it and save fine. I just
can't save new ones.
Anyway, I hope this gets fixed. I am running pure rawhide Fedora Core,
just so you know... latest of everything.
Trever
On Thu,
Thank you all for having been so kind in your responses and help.
However, there is one more set of questions I have.
Does the md (software raid) have disk size or raid volume limits?
If I am using such things as USB or 1394 disks, is there a way to use
labels in /etc/raidtab and with the tools
Thank you all for having been so kind in your responses and help.
However, there is one more set of questions I have.
Does the md (software raid) have disk size or raid volume limits?
If I am using such things as USB or 1394 disks, is there a way to use
labels in /etc/raidtab and with the tools
PV = the device
VG = groups of them (the RAID5 array?)
LV = what? the file system?
So, from what you are telling me, and the man page, 2.6.x with LVM2 can
have basically any size of PV, VG, and LV I want.
Am I flawed in my understanding?
Thank you,
Trever
On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 22:02 +,
It is for a group. For the most part it is data access/retention. Writes
and such would be more similar to a desktop. I would use SATA if they
were (nearly) equally priced and there were awesome 1394 to SATA bridge
chips that worked well with Linux. So, right now, I am looking at ATA to
1394.
So,
By bridge chips I mean IEEE-1394 to IDE. Also, is it possible to set
spin down time for these IDE disks through 1394? i.e. if they are
inactive for 1 hour, I would like them to spin down. Is this possible?
Trever
On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 12:53 -0700, Trever L. Adams wrote:
> I have a few questi
I have a few questions: How stable is firewire (running at 800Mbps or
faster, if any is available yet)? How stable is the Linux subsystem,
especially for firewire disks? Is there any particularly 800Mbps bridge
chips that should be avoided or used?
How stable is the subsystem when the chain is
I recently saw Alan Cox say on this list that LVM won't handle more than
2 terabytes. Is this LVM2 or LVM? What is the maximum amount of disk
space LVM2 (or any other RAID/MIRROR capable technology that is in
Linus's kernel) handle? I am talking with various people and we are
looking at Samba on
I recently saw Alan Cox say on this list that LVM won't handle more than
2 terabytes. Is this LVM2 or LVM? What is the maximum amount of disk
space LVM2 (or any other RAID/MIRROR capable technology that is in
Linus's kernel) handle? I am talking with various people and we are
looking at Samba on
I have a few questions: How stable is firewire (running at 800Mbps or
faster, if any is available yet)? How stable is the Linux subsystem,
especially for firewire disks? Is there any particularly 800Mbps bridge
chips that should be avoided or used?
How stable is the subsystem when the chain is
It is for a group. For the most part it is data access/retention. Writes
and such would be more similar to a desktop. I would use SATA if they
were (nearly) equally priced and there were awesome 1394 to SATA bridge
chips that worked well with Linux. So, right now, I am looking at ATA to
1394.
So,
PV = the device
VG = groups of them (the RAID5 array?)
LV = what? the file system?
So, from what you are telling me, and the man page, 2.6.x with LVM2 can
have basically any size of PV, VG, and LV I want.
Am I flawed in my understanding?
Thank you,
Trever
On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 22:02 +,
> I am doing very well with my consulting projects, but to be honest,
> my family has sufferred horribly in the past four years fighting with
> Novell every other week, and there's a very strong chance I will be
> moving shop to either New Mexico or Arizona, since they own the
> local courts
I am doing very well with my consulting projects, but to be honest,
my family has sufferred horribly in the past four years fighting with
Novell every other week, and there's a very strong chance I will be
moving shop to either New Mexico or Arizona, since they own the
local courts here
I hate to ask this, however here goes. I am doing some remote upgrading
and some other really funky stuff to some boxes I keep up.
Part of these are total system upgrades and I need to move data out of
the way while still having a working box. I decided that cramfs may be
the way to do
I hate to ask this, however here goes. I am doing some remote upgrading
and some other really funky stuff to some boxes I keep up.
Part of these are total system upgrades and I need to move data out of
the way while still having a working box. I decided that cramfs may be
the way to do
Christopher Zimmerman wrote:
>
> I've found that with the latest kernel release (2.4.5) VM performance has
> been greatly improved. kswapd and bdflush no longer use 200% of my cpu
> cycles when simply doing a dd bs=1024 count=8388608 if=/dev/zero
> of=test.file. All of my test systems remain
In my opinion 2.4.x is NOT ready for primetime. The VM has been getting
worse since 2.4.0, I believe. Definitely since and including 2.4.3. I
cannot even edit a few images in gimp where the entire working set used
to fit entirely in memory. The system now locks in some loop (SAK still
In my opinion 2.4.x is NOT ready for primetime. The VM has been getting
worse since 2.4.0, I believe. Definitely since and including 2.4.3. I
cannot even edit a few images in gimp where the entire working set used
to fit entirely in memory. The system now locks in some loop (SAK still
Christopher Zimmerman wrote:
I've found that with the latest kernel release (2.4.5) VM performance has
been greatly improved. kswapd and bdflush no longer use 200% of my cpu
cycles when simply doing a dd bs=1024 count=8388608 if=/dev/zero
of=test.file. All of my test systems remain
I know this is off topic. I am not sure where else to go. All of my
google searches lead me to very dead and very old information on
multicasting. I am sure most of it is not useful, though some of the
basics are.
If people have a problem answering on list, please answer off.
My questions:
I know this is off topic. I am not sure where else to go. All of my
google searches lead me to very dead and very old information on
multicasting. I am sure most of it is not useful, though some of the
basics are.
If people have a problem answering on list, please answer off.
My
I know this is off topic. I am not sure where else to go. All of my
google searches lead me to very dead and very old information on
multicasting. I am sure most of it is not useful, though some of the
basics are.
If people have a problem answering on list, please answer off.
My questions:
I know this is off topic. I am not sure where else to go. All of my
google searches lead me to very dead and very old information on
multicasting. I am sure most of it is not useful, though some of the
basics are.
If people have a problem answering on list, please answer off.
My
I would like to thank all of those who worked on 2.4.4. Mozilla no
longer gets lost in D state. Things seem to be much snappier. I have
yet to see the memory disappearing problems or sound corruption problems
people have seen.
My system is a 800 Mhz Athlon classic with 128 meg of ram, via
I would like to thank all of those who worked on 2.4.4. Mozilla no
longer gets lost in D state. Things seem to be much snappier. I have
yet to see the memory disappearing problems or sound corruption problems
people have seen.
My system is a 800 Mhz Athlon classic with 128 meg of ram, via
Juri Haberland wrote:
>
> Hi Trevor,
>
> I have the same problem with almost the same combination (RH 7.0 instead of
> RH 7.1). Did you compile the XFree server yourself and if so, did you
> optimize it for i686? The reason why I'm asking is that I did that and
> suspected the optimazions to
I hate to report this again, I saw some reports that it was fixed with
4.0.3 of XFree86, so I tried XF86 4.0.3 with RedHat 7.1.
Any time it tries to turn the monitor off, it crashes. I get no oopses.
Nothing.
Has anyone figured out why it crashes? How can I fix it besides remove
the power
I hate to report this again, I saw some reports that it was fixed with
4.0.3 of XFree86, so I tried XF86 4.0.3 with RedHat 7.1.
Any time it tries to turn the monitor off, it crashes. I get no oopses.
Nothing.
Has anyone figured out why it crashes? How can I fix it besides remove
the power
Juri Haberland wrote:
Hi Trevor,
I have the same problem with almost the same combination (RH 7.0 instead of
RH 7.1). Did you compile the XFree server yourself and if so, did you
optimize it for i686? The reason why I'm asking is that I did that and
suspected the optimazions to cause
Grover, Andrew wrote:
>> From: Trever L. Adams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> 2.4.3 no longer shuts down automatically with S5.
>>
>> [2.] Full description of the problem/report:
>>
>> 2.4.3 no longer shuts down automatically with S5. I have an Athlon
[1.] One line summary of the problem:
2.4.3 no longer shuts down automatically with S5.
[2.] Full description of the problem/report:
2.4.3 no longer shuts down automatically with S5. I have an Athlon
based system using the FIC-SD11 motherboard. In 2.4.1 and possibly
2.4.2 the system used
[1.] One line summary of the problem:
Mozilla and other programs easily get in D State
[2.] Full description of the problem/report:
Mozilla is easy to get into D State. Simply start it 2001040414 build.
This is not the only program that I have doing this. It is just the
easiest to make
[1.] One line summary of the problem:
Mozilla and other programs easily get in D State
[2.] Full description of the problem/report:
Mozilla is easy to get into D State. Simply start it 2001040414 build.
This is not the only program that I have doing this. It is just the
easiest to make
[1.] One line summary of the problem:
2.4.3 no longer shuts down automatically with S5.
[2.] Full description of the problem/report:
2.4.3 no longer shuts down automatically with S5. I have an Athlon
based system using the FIC-SD11 motherboard. In 2.4.1 and possibly
2.4.2 the system used
Grover, Andrew wrote:
From: Trever L. Adams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
2.4.3 no longer shuts down automatically with S5.
[2.] Full description of the problem/report:
2.4.3 no longer shuts down automatically with S5. I have an Athlon
based system using the FIC-SD11 motherboard
Mark Hahn wrote:
>> There may be a possibility this is machine specific, because if it is
>> meant to forward the packet to the internal net and I slow the machine
>> down (external cache off) it works fine, turn the cache back on and it
>> is a problem.
>
>
> where's the serial port?
I am trying to find out if I am the only one who has pppd drop packets
as bogus when the port is set at 115Kbps. I only get it at that speed.
It causes stall outs etc.
There may be a possibility this is machine specific, because if it is
meant to forward the packet to the internal net and
I am trying to find out if I am the only one who has pppd drop packets
as bogus when the port is set at 115Kbps. I only get it at that speed.
It causes stall outs etc.
There may be a possibility this is machine specific, because if it is
meant to forward the packet to the internal net and
Mark Hahn wrote:
There may be a possibility this is machine specific, because if it is
meant to forward the packet to the internal net and I slow the machine
down (external cache off) it works fine, turn the cache back on and it
is a problem.
where's the serial port? (isa, pci?)
I have had great success with the 2.4.x series of kernels so far. I am
using 2.4.1. However, with 2.4.0 and 2.4.1 (haven't tried the pre for 2
yet), I have been having tulip networking cards up the wazoo. I turn my
switch off and back on and that seems to help.
Is this a hardware problem or
I have had great success with the 2.4.x series of kernels so far. I am
using 2.4.1. However, with 2.4.0 and 2.4.1 (haven't tried the pre for 2
yet), I have been having tulip networking cards up the wazoo. I turn my
switch off and back on and that seems to help.
Is this a hardware problem or
ere you want to install and the source from where
> you want to install, then select just the lilo configuration (bootconfiguration
> I mean), complete that step and reboot your machine, lilo will'be there again.
>
> P.
>
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Trever L. Adams wrote:
I hate to t
Mike A. Harris wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Trever Adams wrote:
>
> I don't see how Windows 9x can be at fault in any way shape or
> form, if you can boot between 2.2.x kernel and 9x no problem, but
> lose your disk if you boot Win98 and then 2.3.x/2.4.x and lose
> everything. Windows does
Mike A. Harris wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Trever Adams wrote:
I don't see how Windows 9x can be at fault in any way shape or
form, if you can boot between 2.2.x kernel and 9x no problem, but
lose your disk if you boot Win98 and then 2.3.x/2.4.x and lose
everything. Windows does not
to install and the source from where
you want to install, then select just the lilo configuration (bootconfiguration
I mean), complete that step and reboot your machine, lilo will'be there again.
P.
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Trever L. Adams wrote:
I hate to tell you this, but you couldn't be more
54 matches
Mail list logo
