search for: groked

Here''s the problem I''m trying to solve. I use apache, for lots of things, some of those things are configured from a performance standpoint differently. In less vague terms I need to be able to change the MaxClients setting to different things based on the different purposes apache serves. (say proxy vs. app) Under previous CMS/templating engines I would have a httpd.conf that

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Nate Begeman <natebegeman at me.com> wrote: > > On Feb 23, 2009, at 1:46 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > In my opinion, the proper direction for shuffles is: >> >> 1. Back out your patch. >> 2. Move the functionality of "is splat" etc to method somewhere, e.g. >> on SDNode. >> 3. Introduce a new

On Fri, 2015-09-18 at 14:09 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > On Fri, 2015-09-18 at 11:12 -0700, Ming Lin wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 17:55 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > > On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 16:31 -0700, Ming Lin wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2015-09-16 at 23:10 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > > > > Hi Ming & Co, > >

On Fri, 2015-09-18 at 14:09 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > On Fri, 2015-09-18 at 11:12 -0700, Ming Lin wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 17:55 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > > On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 16:31 -0700, Ming Lin wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2015-09-16 at 23:10 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > > > > Hi Ming & Co, > >

On Feb 23, 2009, at 1:46 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > In my opinion, the proper direction for shuffles is: > > 1. Back out your patch. > 2. Move the functionality of "is splat" etc to method somewhere, e.g. > on SDNode. > 3. Introduce a new ShuffleVectorSDNode that only has two SDValue > operands (the two input vectors), but that also contains an array of > ints in

We have a bunch of lists hosted on a CentOS-4.9 server running sendmail and mailman that we are moving to a CentOS-6 vm running postfix and mailman. I am testing the setup and I am running into a problem no doubt caused by my own ignorance wrt postfix. Based on groking the web I discovered that the recommended way to configure postfix to work with mailman is a script called

> Gregory, bind() does support this. It''s my preferred technique. Ah, well, that''s good to know then. I''d always wanted to do it this way, but when I last looked into it, it wasn''t yet supported. That was a while ago, though. Thanks for the heads up. Greg

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > Sorry, but it is not even close to working (its template and STL support > > is horribly lacking). The Visual Studio "Whidbey" compiler, now in beta, > > will handle it though with only a reasonable amount of tweaking to the > > LLVM sources. I have no idea about when Microsoft intends to release it > > though,

On Wed, 2015-09-23 at 15:58 -0700, Ming Lin wrote: > On Fri, 2015-09-18 at 14:09 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > On Fri, 2015-09-18 at 11:12 -0700, Ming Lin wrote: > > > On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 17:55 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: <SNIP> > > IBLOCK + FILEIO + RD_MCP don't speak SCSI, they simply process I/Os with > > LBA + length based on SGL

On Wed, 2014-08-27 at 20:40 +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > Hi Andy, > > This has long been a source of contention. virtio assumes that > the hypervisor can decode guest-physical addresses. > > PowerPC, in particular, doesn't want to pay the cost of IOMMU > manipulations, and all arguments presented so far for using an IOMMU for > a virtio device are

On Wed, 2014-08-27 at 20:40 +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > Hi Andy, > > This has long been a source of contention. virtio assumes that > the hypervisor can decode guest-physical addresses. > > PowerPC, in particular, doesn't want to pay the cost of IOMMU > manipulations, and all arguments presented so far for using an IOMMU for > a virtio device are

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Bill Wendling wrote: > > I just wanted to know if anyone's looked into using the free version of > > Microsoft's Visual C++ toolkit for LLVM: > > > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/vctoolkit2003/ > > Sorry, but it is not even close to working (its template and STL support > is horribly lacking). The

On May 6, 2004, at 12:01 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Wed, 5 May 2004, Patrick Flanagan wrote: >>>> and I'm not convinced that GCC is doing a very good job (ie, without >>>> syntactic loops). >>> >>> Yup, this is EXACTLY what is going on. >> >> Interesting. Now that you mention it, I do recall thinking the loops >> that llvm

I'm still learning firewalld obviously, and I am having trouble groking the documentation to understand how to do this. I know I could do an iptables direct, but that doesn't seem like the "right" way to do it. What I'm trying to do is allow a specific service, only for a specific ip. Effectively, SNMP should be allowed form a specific IP address (the systems monitor).

I just subscribed to this list and i just wanted to say hello before starting dumb questions about rails. I just started my programming career with a ruby''n''rails application here in italy and i could use some help, and in time, when i will be more skilled, i will be glad to give some help back ;) See you! -- Maurizio Marek idnondisponibile@tin.it

On Feb 23, 2009, at 2:49 PM, Scott Michel wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Nate Begeman <natebegeman at me.com> > wrote: > > On Feb 23, 2009, at 1:46 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > In my opinion, the proper direction for shuffles is: > > 1. Back out your patch. > 2. Move the functionality of "is splat" etc to method somewhere, e.g. > on

I am trying to implement an ANOVA on a pair of quantile regression models in R. The anova.rq() function performs a basic check to see whether the models are nested, but I think this check is failing in my case. I think my models are nested despite the anova.rqlist() function saying otherwise. Here is an example where the GLM ANOVA regards the models as nested, but the quantile regression ANOVA

Hello -STABLE@, So I've seen this situation seemingly randomly on a number of both physical 9.1 boxes as well as VMs for I would say 6-9 months at least. I finally have a physical box here that reproduces it consistently that I can reboot easily (ie; not a production/client server). No matter what I do: reboot shutdown -p shutdown -r This specific server will stop at "All buffers

On Wed, 5 May 2004, Patrick Flanagan wrote: > >> and I'm not convinced that GCC is doing a very good job (ie, without > >> syntactic loops). > > > > Yup, this is EXACTLY what is going on. > > Interesting. Now that you mention it, I do recall thinking the loops > that llvm generated looked a bit different than the gcc loops. I'll go > back and take

Features: * Management WEBrick - start, stop * Viewing log files * Abbrev from TextMate * Switching between View/Action http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/emacs/rails.el