search for: iteratable

...using director, you can issue `doveadm quota recalc -A` on > director, which will then direct it to correct backend. > > For this to work, it requires that you setup doveadm server on the backend, > and configure doveadm_port and doveadm_password on director. It also either > needs iteratable user database on director, or a list of users in a file, > which you can provide with option -F. > > Aki Hi Aki, Nice to know! The quota plugin has to be configured on the frontends? With which backend? Right now the "quota" subcommands are not recognised. Thanks-- *Simone...

In data mercoled? 18 marzo 2020 23:08:27 CET, Alessio Cecchi ha scritto: > Ciao Simone, > > why you want each backend to recalc quota only for its managed users and > not run "doveadm quota recalc -A" only one time from a backend tha > recalc quota for all users? > Because the indexes are local to the backends. If I make the recalc from one backend only, that one

We received no replies to this email that we sent a few days ago. We're not sure why. If we miss something that is obvious to everybody, kindly point it out. We ?ould like to get iteration working, to be able to mass-delete specific emails from all mailboxes, in case of for example received virusses... Here is my question again: Hi, User iteration doesn't work, we're getting:

On 17.09.2013, at 20:04, Ghassan Shobaki <ghassan_shobaki at yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi Andy, > > We have done some experimental evaluation of the different schedulers in LLVM 3.3 (source, BURR, ILP, fast, MI). The evaluation was done on x86-64 using SPEC CPU2006. We have measured both the amount of spill code as well as the execution time as detailed below. > > Here are our

Hi all, I 'd like to fetch a list of structures, and found that it could be done via LLVMContextImpl *pImpl = Context.pImpl; pImpl->AnonStructTypes This however needs the inclusion of LLVMContextImpl.h, which is not contained in the includes dir, but in the lib/IR dir (next to the .cpp files) and is not installed under /usr/local/include... Whats the reason for this? Isn't it

...;*" > work? > > Below are our configs. Any tips would be appreciated...! > > MJ > >> userdb { >> args = uid=vmail gid=vmail home=/var/vmail/%n allow_all_users=yes >> driver = static >> } This needs to use driver = ldap, static userdb's are not iteratable. Aki

...one Lazzaris If you are using director, you can issue `doveadm quota recalc -A` on director, which will then direct it to correct backend. For this to work, it requires that you setup doveadm server on the backend, and configure doveadm_port and doveadm_password on director. It also either needs iteratable user database on director, or a list of users in a file, which you can provide with option -F. Aki

Our test machine has two Intel Xeon E5540 processors running at 2.53 GHz with 24 GB of memory. Each CPU has 8 threads (16 threads in total). All our tests, however, were single threaded. Which result is particularly surprising for you? The low impact of the MI scheduler, the relatively good performance of the source scheduler or the relatively poor performance of the ILP scheduler? Thanks

On 3/7/23 23:43, Liam R. Howlett wrote: > * Danilo Krummrich <dakr at redhat.com> [230306 10:46]: >> On 3/2/23 03:38, Liam R. Howlett wrote: >>> * Danilo Krummrich <dakr at redhat.com> [230227 08:17]: >>> >>> ... >>>>>> Would this variant be significantly more efficient? >>>>> >>>>> Well, what you are

Hi Andy, We have done some experimental evaluation of the different schedulers in LLVM 3.3 (source, BURR, ILP, fast, MI). The evaluation was done on x86-64 using SPEC CPU2006. We have measured both the amount of spill code as well as the execution time as detailed below. Here are our main findings: 1. The SD schedulers significantly impact the spill counts and the execution times for many

On Jul 2, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Ghassan Shobaki <ghassan_shobaki at yahoo.com> wrote: > Thank you for the answers! We are currently trying to test the MI scheduler. We are using LLVM 3.3 with Dragon Egg 3.3 on an x86-64 machine. So far, we have run one SPEC CPU2006 test with the MI scheduler enabled using the option -fplugin-arg-dragonegg-llvm-option='-enable-misched:true' with -O3.

On 3/2/23 03:38, Liam R. Howlett wrote: > * Danilo Krummrich <dakr at redhat.com> [230227 08:17]: > > ... >>>> Would this variant be significantly more efficient? >>> >>> Well, what you are doing is walking the tree to see if there's anything >>> there... then re-walking the tree to store it. So, yes, it's much more >>>

On 2/23/23 20:09, Liam R. Howlett wrote: > * Danilo Krummrich <dakr at redhat.com> [230222 13:13]: >> On 2/21/23 19:20, Liam R. Howlett wrote: >>> * Danilo Krummrich <dakr at redhat.com> [230217 08:45]: >>>> Add infrastructure to keep track of GPU virtual address (VA) mappings >>>> with a decicated VA space manager implementation.

Thank you for the answers! We are currently trying to test the MI scheduler. We are using LLVM 3.3 with Dragon Egg 3.3 on an x86-64 machine. So far, we have run one SPEC CPU2006 test with the MI scheduler enabled using the option -fplugin-arg-dragonegg-llvm-option='-enable-misched:true' with -O3. This enables the machine scheduler in addition to the SD scheduler. We have verified this by