Displaying 20 results from an estimated 21 matches for "157k".
Did you mean:
157
2010 Feb 12
13
SSD and ZFS
Hi all,
just after sending a message to sunmanagers I realized that my question
should rather have gone here. So sunmanagers please excus ethe double
post:
I have inherited a X4140 (8 SAS slots) and have just setup the system
with Solaris 10 09. I first setup the system on a mirrored pool over
the first two disks
pool: rpool
state: ONLINE
scrub: none requested
config:
NAME
2018 Jan 30
4
CRAN indices out of whack (for at least macOS)
...t
Version: 0.6.15
Title: Create Compact Hash Digests of R Objects
Depends: R (>= 2.4.1)
Suggests: knitr, rmarkdown
Built: R 3.4.3; x86_64-apple-darwin15.6.0; 2018-01-29 05:21:06 UTC; unix
Archs: digest.so.dSYM
yet the _same directory_ only has:
digest_0.6.14.tgz 15-Jan-2018 21:36 157K
I presume this is a temporary accident.
We are all spoiled by you all providing such a wonderfully robust and
well-oiled service---so again big THANKS for that--but today something is out
of order.
Dirk
--
http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | edd at debian.org
2018 Jan 31
1
CRAN indices out of whack (for at least macOS)
...of R Objects
> | Depends: R (>= 2.4.1)
> | Suggests: knitr, rmarkdown
> | Built: R 3.4.3; x86_64-apple-darwin15.6.0; 2018-01-29 05:21:06 UTC; unix
> | Archs: digest.so.dSYM
> |
> | yet the _same directory_ only has:
> |
> | digest_0.6.14.tgz 15-Jan-2018 21:36 157K
> |
> | I presume this is a temporary accident.
> |
> | We are all spoiled by you all providing such a wonderfully robust and
> | well-oiled service---so again big THANKS for that--but today something is out
> | of order.
> |
> | Dirk
> |
> | --
> | http://dirk...
2012 Jan 20
3
Istalling Ruby 1.9.2
...y-1.9.2-p290, this may take a while
depending on your connection...
% Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time
Current
Dload Upload Total Spent Left
Speed
100 8604k 100 8604k 0 0 394k 0 0:00:21 0:00:21 --:--:--
157k
ruby-1.9.2-p290 - #extracting ruby-1.9.2-p290 to
/Users/fkrihely/.rvm/src/ruby-1.9.2-p290
ruby-1.9.2-p290 - #extracted to /Users/fkrihely/.rvm/src/ruby-1.9.2-p290
ruby-1.9.2-p290 - #configuring
ruby-1.9.2-p290 - #compiling
ruby-1.9.2-p290 - #installing
Removing old Rubygems files...
Installing ruby...
2014 Apr 23
2
*.c32 for efi64 and efi32?
...mlinuz" in your
> configs instead of "../shared/vmlinuz" (which is prone to issues).
Because pxelinux.0, bootia32.efi and bootx64.efi are different names, so
I can put them in the same path, no problem for this, i.e.
$ ls -alFh /tftpboot/nbi_img/{*.0,*.efi}
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 157K Apr 22 15:30 /tftpboot/nbi_img/bootia32.efi
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 160K Apr 22 15:30 /tftpboot/nbi_img/bootx64.efi
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 105K Apr 22 15:30 /tftpboot/nbi_img/gpxelinux.0
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 74K Apr 22 15:30 /tftpboot/nbi_img/lpxelinux.0
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 42K Apr 22 15:30 /...
2024 Nov 11
1
Disk size and virtual size drive me crazy!
...f
Sist. Arq. Tam. Usado Disp. Uso% Montado em
udev 252G 0 252G 0% /dev
tmpfs 51G 9,4M 51G 1% /run
/dev/sda4 433G 20G 413G 5% /
tmpfs 252G 63M 252G 1% /dev/shm
tmpfs 5,0M 0 5,0M 0% /run/lock
efivarfs 496K 335K 157K 69% /sys/firmware/efi/efivars
/dev/sda2 1,8G 204M 1,5G 12% /boot
/dev/sda1 1,9G 12M 1,9G 1% /boot/efi
/dev/sdb 932G 728G 204G 79% /disco1TB-0
/dev/sdc 932G 718G 214G 78% /disco1TB-1
/dev/sde 932G 720G 212G 78% /disco1TB-2
/dev/sdd 1,9T 1,5T...
2024 Nov 20
1
Disk size and virtual size drive me crazy!
...f
Sist. Arq. ? ? ?Tam. Usado Disp. Uso% Montado em
udev ? ? ? ? ? ?252G ? ? 0 ?252G ? 0% /dev
tmpfs ? ? ? ? ? ?51G ?9,4M ? 51G ? 1% /run
/dev/sda4 ? ? ? 433G ? 20G ?413G ? 5% /
tmpfs ? ? ? ? ? 252G ? 63M ?252G ? 1% /dev/shm
tmpfs ? ? ? ? ? 5,0M ? ? 0 ?5,0M ? 0% /run/lock
efivarfs ? ? ? ?496K ?335K ?157K ?69% /sys/firmware/efi/efivars
/dev/sda2 ? ? ? 1,8G ?204M ?1,5G ?12% /boot
/dev/sda1 ? ? ? 1,9G ? 12M ?1,9G ? 1% /boot/efi
/dev/sdb ? ? ? ?932G ?728G ?204G ?79% /disco1TB-0
/dev/sdc ? ? ? ?932G ?718G ?214G ?78% /disco1TB-1
/dev/sde ? ? ? ?932G ?720G ?212G ?78% /disco1TB-2
/dev/sdd ? ? ? ?1,9T ?1,5T...
2024 Nov 20
1
Disk size and virtual size drive me crazy!
...isp. Uso% Montado em
> udev 252G 0 252G 0% /dev
> tmpfs 51G 9,4M 51G 1% /run
> /dev/sda4 433G 20G 413G 5% /
> tmpfs 252G 63M 252G 1% /dev/shm
> tmpfs 5,0M 0 5,0M 0% /run/lock
> efivarfs 496K 335K 157K 69% /sys/firmware/efi/efivars
> /dev/sda2 1,8G 204M 1,5G 12% /boot
> /dev/sda1 1,9G 12M 1,9G 1% /boot/efi
> /dev/sdb 932G 728G 204G 79% /disco1TB-0
> /dev/sdc 932G 718G 214G 78% /disco1TB-1
> /dev/sde 932G 720G 212G 78% /disco1TB-2
&...
2024 Nov 29
1
Disk size and virtual size drive me crazy!
...f
Sist. Arq. ? ? ?Tam. Usado Disp. Uso% Montado em
udev ? ? ? ? ? ?252G ? ? 0 ?252G ? 0% /dev
tmpfs ? ? ? ? ? ?51G ?9,4M ? 51G ? 1% /run
/dev/sda4 ? ? ? 433G ? 20G ?413G ? 5% /
tmpfs ? ? ? ? ? 252G ? 63M ?252G ? 1% /dev/shm
tmpfs ? ? ? ? ? 5,0M ? ? 0 ?5,0M ? 0% /run/lock
efivarfs ? ? ? ?496K ?335K ?157K ?69% /sys/firmware/efi/efivars
/dev/sda2 ? ? ? 1,8G ?204M ?1,5G ?12% /boot
/dev/sda1 ? ? ? 1,9G ? 12M ?1,9G ? 1% /boot/efi
/dev/sdb ? ? ? ?932G ?728G ?204G ?79% /disco1TB-0
/dev/sdc ? ? ? ?932G ?718G ?214G ?78% /disco1TB-1
/dev/sde ? ? ? ?932G ?720G ?212G ?78% /disco1TB-2
/dev/sdd ? ? ? ?1,9T ?1,5T...
2024 Nov 29
1
Disk size and virtual size drive me crazy!
...isp. Uso% Montado em
> udev 252G 0 252G 0% /dev
> tmpfs 51G 9,4M 51G 1% /run
> /dev/sda4 433G 20G 413G 5% /
> tmpfs 252G 63M 252G 1% /dev/shm
> tmpfs 5,0M 0 5,0M 0% /run/lock
> efivarfs 496K 335K 157K 69% /sys/firmware/efi/efivars
> /dev/sda2 1,8G 204M 1,5G 12% /boot
> /dev/sda1 1,9G 12M 1,9G 1% /boot/efi
> /dev/sdb 932G 728G 204G 79% /disco1TB-0
> /dev/sdc 932G 718G 214G 78% /disco1TB-1
> /dev/sde 932G 720G 212G 78% /disco1TB-2
&...
2018 Jan 31
0
CRAN indices out of whack (for at least macOS)
...5
| Title: Create Compact Hash Digests of R Objects
| Depends: R (>= 2.4.1)
| Suggests: knitr, rmarkdown
| Built: R 3.4.3; x86_64-apple-darwin15.6.0; 2018-01-29 05:21:06 UTC; unix
| Archs: digest.so.dSYM
|
| yet the _same directory_ only has:
|
| digest_0.6.14.tgz 15-Jan-2018 21:36 157K
|
| I presume this is a temporary accident.
|
| We are all spoiled by you all providing such a wonderfully robust and
| well-oiled service---so again big THANKS for that--but today something is out
| of order.
|
| Dirk
|
| --
| http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | edd at debian.org
|...
2014 Apr 23
0
*.c32 for efi64 and efi32?
...> configs instead of "../shared/vmlinuz" (which is prone to issues).
> Because pxelinux.0, bootia32.efi and bootx64.efi are different names, so
> I can put them in the same path, no problem for this, i.e.
> $ ls -alFh /tftpboot/nbi_img/{*.0,*.efi}
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 157K Apr 22 15:30 /tftpboot/nbi_img/bootia32.efi
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 160K Apr 22 15:30 /tftpboot/nbi_img/bootx64.efi
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 105K Apr 22 15:30 /tftpboot/nbi_img/gpxelinux.0
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 74K Apr 22 15:30 /tftpboot/nbi_img/lpxelinux.0
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root...
2024 Dec 02
1
Disk size and virtual size drive me crazy!
...0% /dev
>>>> tmpfs 51G 9,4M 51G 1% /run
>>>> /dev/sda4 433G 20G 413G 5% /
>>>> tmpfs 252G 63M 252G 1% /dev/shm
>>>> tmpfs 5,0M 0 5,0M 0% /run/lock
>>>> efivarfs 496K 335K 157K 69% /sys/firmware/efi/efivars
>>>> /dev/sda2 1,8G 204M 1,5G 12% /boot
>>>> /dev/sda1 1,9G 12M 1,9G 1% /boot/efi
>>>> /dev/sdb 932G 728G 204G 79% /disco1TB-0
>>>> /dev/sdc 932G 718G 214G 78% /disco1TB-1
>>...
2007 Dec 28
0
marking and routing (with multi-isp) not working
...#39;s purpose is to default traffic via the CGCO
table and connection):
Chain tcpre (3 references)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
1310K 1862M RETURN all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 MARK match !0x0/0xc0
157K 14M MARK all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 MARK set 0x40
42 5537 MARK all -- * * 10.75.22.101 0.0.0.0/0 MARK set 0x80
and given the following entry in the /proc/net/ip_conntrack
udp 17 59 src=99.228.107.5 dst=6...
2008 Mar 27
5
[Bug 871] New: ''zpool key -l'' core dumped with keysource=hex, prompt and unmatched entered in
...dTo: darrenm at opensolaris.org
ReportedBy: hua.tang at sun.com
QAContact: hua.tang at sun.com
CC: zfs-crypto-discuss at opensolaris.org
Estimated Hours: 0.0
-bash-3.2$ zpool list
NAME SIZE USED AVAIL CAP HEALTH ALTROOT
pool_101992_1 1016M 157K 1016M 0% ONLINE -
pool_105153_2 1016M 122K 1016M 0% ONLINE -
-bash-3.2$ zpool key -l
Key Load Error: Key already loaded.
Enter in hexadecmial key for ''pool_105153_2'': ===> Enter "test" here
Enter again: ===> Enter "tttt" here
free(80bbd...
2018 Feb 03
0
CRAN indices out of whack (for at least macOS)
...Digests of R Objects
> Depends: R (>= 2.4.1)
> Suggests: knitr, rmarkdown
> Built: R 3.4.3; x86_64-apple-darwin15.6.0; 2018-01-29 05:21:06 UTC; unix
> Archs: digest.so.dSYM
>
> yet the _same directory_ only has:
>
> digest_0.6.14.tgz 15-Jan-2018 21:36 157K
>
> I presume this is a temporary accident.
>
> We are all spoiled by you all providing such a wonderfully robust and
> well-oiled service---so again big THANKS for that--but today something is out
> of order.
>
> Dirk
>
> --
> http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelb...
2014 Apr 23
2
*.c32 for efi64 and efi32?
Dear Syslinux developers,
I'd like to continue the discussion about this:
http://www.syslinux.org/archives/2014-February/021659.html
i.e. different directories for *.c32 files of BIOS, EFI32, and EFI64.
I am wondering why we can not have
*.c32 for the COMBOOT files of BIOS,
*.e32 for the COMBOOT files of EFI32
*.e64 for the COMBOOT files of EFI64
As now the ldlinux file of syslinux 6.0x has,
2011 May 13
27
Extremely slow zpool scrub performance
Running a zpool scrub on our production pool is showing a scrub rate
of about 400K/s. (When this pool was first set up we saw rates in the
MB/s range during a scrub).
Both zpool iostat and an iostat -Xn show lots of idle disk times, no
above average service times, no abnormally high busy percentages.
Load on the box is .59.
8 x 3GHz, 32GB ram, 96 spindles arranged into raidz zdevs on OI 147.
2003 Mar 30
1
[RFC][patch] dynamic rolling block and sum sizes II
...52K 269K
97M 9K 9K 3 69K 355K
168M 12K 12K 3 90K 467K
291M 17K 17K 3 119K 614K
504M 22K 22K 3 157K 808K
873M 29K 29K 3 206K 1064K
1513M 38K 38K 3 272K 1400K
2070M 45K 45K 4 366K 1647K
4195M 119K 35K 4 280K...
2006 Feb 24
17
Re: [nfs-discuss] bug 6344186
Joseph Little wrote:
> I''d love to "vote" to have this addressed, but apparently votes for
> bugs are no available to outsiders.
>
> What''s limiting Stanford EE''s move to using ZFS entirely for our
> snapshoting filesystems and multi-tier storage is the inability to
> access .zfs directories and snapshots in particular on NFSv3 clients.