search for: laggard

Hey, folks, Sometimes my workstation bogs down... slows to a crawl. Using gkrellm, it's obvious the CPU is the laggard. The top utility confirms: the load average gets up over 4 at times. But this occurs when cpu stepping pegs the speed at 600MHz. This processor is capable of 1.5GHz and when it's allowed to run at that speed, the load average is under 2, which is fine. So the question is: what's a good...

...manner. Rather than make everyone pay the price for such groups, there ought to be a way for them to use an older release of llvm until they figure out how to upgrade. I recommend targeting 4.7.2 or later, because all new C++ code on linux is surely going down that path. You can inconvenience the laggards, or you can turn away the folks leading the way with new implementations. But you can't satisfy both. Karen -- Karen Shaeffer Neuralscape, Mountain View, CA 94040

On Jan 8, 2013, at 4:24 PM, dag at cray.com wrote: > I am personally very much in favor of this. C++11 really is a huge leap > from C++03 in terms of readability, maintainability and safety. I agree completely. > Why not C++11 libraries? Implementation/capatability reasons? I don't > know anything about how the various implementation compare in terms of > completeness. But

Perhaps a note to Matt Morgan but might be of general interest to others... Packaged in redhat-kde repository a very current samba instead of the laggard packages from upstream. I've not been using it and in fact I only just now realized it as I was updating the kde stuff but it's undoubtedly the easiest way to get to samba-3.0.21b Craig

I''ve been tasked at my workplace to upgrade our puppet installation to a more modern version. Currently all the environments run a RubyGem version of puppet 0.25.4 on mostly RHEL/Centos 5.3 - 5.5 (there are, like most environments, a few laggards running RHEL4 or new machines running CentOS 6). The plan is to upgrade these to the most stable version of Puppet, which at the time of writing is 2.7.3. I plan on building RPMs on RHEL5.3 for Puppet 2.7.3 against the Ruby version that RHEL5 shipped with which is 1.8.5 I believe. Are there are...

...t makes the most sense for them in their particular situation. I am of course speaking in generalities, not specifically to C++ libraries and compilers. > I recommend targeting 4.7.2 or later, because all new C++ code on > linux is surely going down that path. You can inconvenience the > laggards, or you can turn away the folks leading the way with new > implementations. But you can't satisfy both. 4.7 doesn't actually have that many new language features than 4.6. I don't know about the std library, that may be quite different. I don't see a compelling reason to go t...

Not fully true about example configs in docs: man pages for CGI bits have some :) https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/blob/master/docs/man/upsset.conf.txt https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/blob/master/docs/man/upsstats.cgi.txt https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/blob/master/docs/man/hosts.conf.txt etc. Other than that, check permissions - e.g. OTOH if Apache user may read your

If you deliver more than a few emails to the outside world, especially if a good portion of those go to Yahoo, you may want to read this message: http://marc.info/?l=postfix-users&m=127689518629249&w=2 Actually, read the whole thread, it's interesting and the discussion still continues: http://marc.info/?t=127619611600001&r=1&w=2 TLDR: The 2.3.3 Postfix version that comes

Hi, We are using samba version 3.0.28 on Sun solaris 5.10 integrated with Windows 2003 Domain Controller. It has been running for couple of years without any issues. Recently the 2003 domain controllers are upgraded to 2008 R2 domain Controllers and the samba server that we currently have is not authenticating With the new domain controllers. Could you please let me know which version of Samba

Hi, i''m new to the list so please bare with me. This isn''t an OpenSolaris related problem but i hope it''s still the right list to post to. I''m on the way to move a backup server to using zfs based storage, but i don''t want to spend too much drives to parity (the 16 drives are attached to a 3ware raid controller so i could also just use raid6 there). I