search for: monopolize

Hello, I have a sound problem with wine: when it is running, the sound works fine, but no other application can play any sound. If I have sound playing elsewhere and then launch wine, then wine do not play any sound. I am using pulseaudio, debian sid 64 bits and I can play several sounds at the same time. This problem happen even if pulseaudio is disabled, and with every wine version I tried

Hello, Hans van Kranenburg, le sam. 09 févr. 2019 17:01:55 +0100, a ecrit: > > I have forwarded the original mail: all VM I/O get stuck, and thus the > > VM becomes unusable. > > These are in many cases the symptoms of running out of "grant frames". Oh! That could be it indeed. I'm wondering what could be monopolizing them, though, and why +deb9u11 is affected

On 2/11/19 2:37 AM, Dongli Zhang wrote: > > On 2/10/19 12:35 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote: >> >> Hans van Kranenburg, le sam. 09 févr. 2019 17:01:55 +0100, a ecrit: >>>> I have forwarded the original mail: all VM I/O get stuck, and thus the >>>> VM becomes unusable. >>> >>> These are in many cases the symptoms of running out of "grant

I have read the ZFS best practice guide located at http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Best_Practices_Guide However I have questions whether we support using slices for data on the same disk as we use for ZFS boot. What issues does this create if we have a disk failure in a mirrored environment? Does anyone have examples of customers doing this in production environments. I

On Wed, May 24, 2017 10:45 am, Warren Young wrote: > On May 24, 2017, at 8:52 AM, Chris Adams <linux at cmadams.net> wrote: >> >> Once upon a time, Warren Young <warren at etr-usa.com> said: >>> a. It???s transmitting from a fixed location in a time zone you >>> probably aren???t in ??? US Mountain ??? being the least populous of >>> the lower

On 02/12/2019 06:10 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Hans van Kranenburg, le lun. 11 févr. 2019 22:59:11 +0100, a ecrit: >> On 2/11/19 2:37 AM, Dongli Zhang wrote: >>> >>> On 2/10/19 12:35 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote: >>>> >>>> Hans van Kranenburg, le sam. 09 févr. 2019 17:01:55 +0100, a ecrit: >>>>>> I have forwarded the original

I have released rsync version 3.3.0. This is a bug fix release, with the increased version bump being a delayed reaction to some of the recent larger changes that have happened. To see a summary of all the recent changes, visit this link: https://rsync.samba.org/ftp/rsync/NEWS#3.3.0 You can download the source tar file and its signature from here:

I have released rsync version 3.3.0. This is a bug fix release, with the increased version bump being a delayed reaction to some of the recent larger changes that have happened. To see a summary of all the recent changes, visit this link: https://rsync.samba.org/ftp/rsync/NEWS#3.3.0 You can download the source tar file and its signature from here:

[Going a bit off-topic here, and going to do a bit of a deep-dive on RF stuff, but maybe it will be useful to Chris] On 05/24/2017 12:20 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > It is insightful, yet... There are a bunch of other factors that may need > to be taken into account. Angular transmission pattern of satellite (horn? > or is it yagi? antenna) vs ground based (monopole? or dipole? antenna -

...their software has) but that is more complex. Another aspect is the logic that is required to decide when to transmit and when to listen. You'd need to recognize the presence or absence of human voice from both the VOIP end and the radio end, and try to balance the two people's rights to monopolize the conversation. The limitation is that the radio is not full-duplex, like a repeater, so when the person on the voip end is talking, and the radio whcih is attached to the dingotel is transmitting that signal, it is not listening, and nothing that the person on the remote radio end says is going...

I've noticed that on Windows during large transfers (such as an iperf run), the receiving end sometimes fails to respond to a PING. When this happens, the sender closes the connection and both ends have to renegotiate. My theory is that, due to the properties of the splay tree, the TAP device event is almost always at the head of the tree and thus if there is traffic, that event will be

On 2/28/07, Ivo Emanuel Gon?alves <justivo@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/28/07, Ralph Giles <giles@xiph.org> wrote: > > Well, there are todo pages at wiki.xiph.org, but I meant more in the > > community folklore sense. My point is a roadmap doesn't help much unless > > there are people committed to making things happen. That's been the > > problem with a

On 2/28/07, Ivo Emanuel Gon?alves <justivo@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/28/07, Ralph Giles <giles@xiph.org> wrote: > > Well, there are todo pages at wiki.xiph.org, but I meant more in the > > community folklore sense. My point is a roadmap doesn't help much unless > > there are people committed to making things happen. That's been the > > problem with a

...Terrible UX. Now you?re finally talking sense. I agree, Linuxes generally should be able to push other Linux installs around, dual-boot, etc. I will even go so far as to say that it is not unreasonable to expect that, say, Debian should be able to carve a slice for itself on a computer currently monopolized by CentOS. You?ll be working on fixing this as soon as you?re done writing emails about it, right? :) > But at least you let the Secure Boot arguing go? You misunderstand. I am not on a crusade, like you seem to be. I can make my point and move on. I have no need to keep making the same p...

On 26/02/14 15:14, Waiman Long wrote: > Locking is always an issue in a virtualized environment as the virtual > CPU that is waiting on a lock may get scheduled out and hence block > any progress in lock acquisition even when the lock has been freed. > > One solution to this problem is to allow unfair lock in a > para-virtualized environment. In this case, a new lock acquirer

On 26/02/14 15:14, Waiman Long wrote: > Locking is always an issue in a virtualized environment as the virtual > CPU that is waiting on a lock may get scheduled out and hence block > any progress in lock acquisition even when the lock has been freed. > > One solution to this problem is to allow unfair lock in a > para-virtualized environment. In this case, a new lock acquirer

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 03:04:24PM -0700, Todd C. Miller wrote: > I've noticed that on Windows during large transfers (such as an > iperf run), the receiving end sometimes fails to respond to a PING. > When this happens, the sender closes the connection and both ends > have to renegotiate. > > My theory is that, due to the properties of the splay tree, the TAP > device

Hi, I'm running a crontjob on CentOS 5.2 server, which then connects to a webpage to run some stuff. It has to run this way, since the webpage is on a Windows server, and the Windows scheduled tasks doesn't work as well. It seems like the cronjob is working fine, except that the email output worries me a bit. This is what I get on email, Your Terminal type is unknown! Enter a

We check for finished xmit skbs on every xmit, or on a timer (unless the host promises to force an interrupt when the xmit ring is empty). This can penalize userspace tasks which fill their sockbuf. Not much difference with TSO, but measurable with large numbers of packets. There are a finite number of packets which can be in the transmission queue. We could fire the timer more than every

We check for finished xmit skbs on every xmit, or on a timer (unless the host promises to force an interrupt when the xmit ring is empty). This can penalize userspace tasks which fill their sockbuf. Not much difference with TSO, but measurable with large numbers of packets. There are a finite number of packets which can be in the transmission queue. We could fire the timer more than every