search for: ewens

Does anyone know if the sib TDT has been implemented in R 1. Spielman, R.S., and Ewens, W.J. (1998) A sibship test for linkage in the presence of association: the sib transmission/disequilibrium test. Am J Hum Genet 62, 450-458 -- Farrel Buchinsky, MD Pediatric Otolaryngologist Allegheny General Hospital Pittsburgh, PA

I have just recently (physically) moved a system with 16 hard drives (for the array) and 1 OS drive; and in doing so, I needed to pull out the 16 drives so that it would be light enough for me to lift. When I plugged the drives back in, initially, it went into a panic-reboot loop. After doing some digging, I deleted the file /etc/zfs/zpool.cache. When I try to import the pool using the zpool

Gagan: Throwing my $0.02 in -- It depends on the system environment of how you are planning on deploying Gluster (and/or Ceph). I have Ceph running on my three node HA Proxmox cluster using three OASLOA Mini PCs that only has the Intel N95 Processor (4-core/4-thread) with 16 GB of RAM and a cheap Microcenter store brand 512 GB NVMe M.2 2230 SSD and my Ceph cluster has been running without any

Gagan: I actually tried what Alexander mentioned below, as a separate experiment. I have two AMD Ryzen 9 5950X compute nodes and one AMD Ryzen 9 7950X compute node, and each node has 128 GB of RAM and also a Mellanox ConnectX-4 100 Gbps Infiniband network card, and I was using I think one Intel 670p 1 TB NVMe SSD and two Silicon Power US70 1 TB NVMe SSD. >From the Ceph perspective, giving it

Hi, I'm wondering if anyone can diagnose the following errors from my log.smbd: ------------ smbd version 2.2.3 started. Copyright Andrew Tridgell and the Samba Team 1992-2002 [2002/02/21 12:04:19, 0] tdb/tdbutil.c:tdb_log(475) tdb(/usr/local/samba/var/locks/connections.tdb): tdb_oob len 1111638618 beyond eof at 8192 [2002/02/21 12:04:19, 0] smbd/connection.c:claim_connection(188)

On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 02:44:28PM +0530, gagan tiwari wrote: > HI Alexander, > Thanks for the update. Initially, I also > thought of deploying Ceph but ceph is quite difficult to set-up and manage. > Moreover, it's also hardware demanding. I think it's most suitable for a > very large set-up with hundreds of clients. I strongly disagree. I

Chris: Whilst I don't know what is the issue nor the root cause of your issue with using GlusterFS with Proxmox, but I am going to guess that you might already know that Proxmox "natively" supports Ceph, which the Wikipedia article for it says that it is a distributed object storage system. Maybe that might work better with Proxmox? Hope this helps. Sorry that I wasn't able

Im trying to run this program called Thinkboxx and wen it tryes to comunicate over the comm port it hangs. Here are som output to read. earlier on i get: Call kernel32.VirtualAlloc(43050000,00001000,00001000,00000004) ret=0058557c Ret kernel32.VirtualAlloc() retval=43050000 ret=0058557c thats from vhere the com port gets an virtual memory space, i think. and in the end i have: Call

HI Alexander, Thanks for the update. Initially, I also thought of deploying Ceph but ceph is quite difficult to set-up and manage. Moreover, it's also hardware demanding. I think it's most suitable for a very large set-up with hundreds of clients. What do you think of MooseFS ? Have you or anyone else tried MooseFS. If yes, how was its performance?

Hi, we'd like to use glusterfs for Proxmox and virtual machines with qcow2 disk images. We have a three node glusterfs setup with one volume and Proxmox is attached and VMs are created, but after some time, and I think after much i/o is going on for a VM, the data inside the virtual machine gets corrupted. When I copy files from or to our glusterfs directly everything is OK, I've

why the install is failing. Do in need to rpm -e on all the 2.07 packages??? Return-Path: <nikolaus@erlm.siemens.de> Delivered-To: samba@lists.samba.org Received: from atlantis.erlm.siemens.de (atlantis.erlm.siemens.de [212.114.202.14]) by lists.samba.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B884C4278 for <samba@lists.samba.org>; Sun, 27 May 2001 22:05:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from