search for: node11

...-bck-m1-d1.qcow2: Input/output error Configuration and status of volume is: # gluster volume info vol1 Volume Name: vol1 Type: Disperse Volume ID: a7d52933-fccc-4b07-9c3b-5b92f398aa79 Status: Started Snapshot Count: 0 Number of Bricks: 1 x (13 + 2) = 15 Transport-type: tcp Bricks: Brick1: glfs-node11.local:/data1/bricks/brick1 Brick2: glfs-node12.local:/data1/bricks/brick1 Brick3: glfs-node13.local:/data1/bricks/brick1 Brick4: glfs-node14.local:/data1/bricks/brick1 Brick5: glfs-node15.local:/data1/bricks/brick1 Brick6: glfs-node16.local:/data1/bricks/brick1 Brick7: glfs-node17.local:/data1/bric...

...he ASCII values of these bits (I mean how?). I did read the bit allocation available at below url, so that I could write a kind of unpacking function, however, the format of the table was quite confusing, I did understand the "0 1 2 3 4"? http://www.speex.org/docs/manual/speex-manual/node11.html#SECTION000114000000000000000 Thanks for your help. Kishore Prahallad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/speex-dev/attachments/20070413/fafe11cd/attachment.htm

Hi, On http://www.speex.org/docs/manual/speex-manual/node11.html#SECTION001140000000000000000 the bitrate for Speex Wideband mode 9 and 10 is 9 34,400 10 42,400 On http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-speex-03 the bitrate for Speex Wideband mode 9 and 10 is 9 34.2 kbit/s 10 42.2 kbit/s I believe the draft contains the right values: E...

hello all, we are developing and porting vorbis1decoder on a 24 bit platform. in the process we came across somedoubts about node bytes and leaf words. from the specification we got that we are arranging the huffman codeword tree into an array. the nodebytes are the number of bytes that are required to represent a node and leafwords are the no. of bytes required to represent the leaf i.e the

...<f2> 1"]; node7[label = "<f0> 0 | <f1> | <f2> 1"]; node8[label = "<f0> 0 | <f1> | <f2> 1"]; node9 [shape = ellipse, label = "3"]; node8:f0 -> node9; node10[label = "<f0> 0 | <f1> | <f2> 1"]; node11 [shape = ellipse, label = "5"]; node10:f0 -> node11; node12 [shape = ellipse, label = "7"]; node10:f2 -> node12; node8:f2 -> node10:f1 node7:f0 -> node8:f1 node13 [shape = ellipse, label = "6"]; node7:f2 -> node13; node6:f0 -> node7:f1 node14 [shape =...

Hi, I am a bit confused on how code-words are derived from the codeword lengths. I will appreciate if someone can point me in the correct direction. I will take the example of an actual codebook that i found in a valid vorbis encoded file as shown below. [SK] +------Codebook [0] -------- [SK] Codebook Dimensions = 1 [SK] Codebook Entries = 8 [SK] Unordered [SK] 1, 6, 3, 7, 2, 5, 4, 7, [SK] NO

Hi, I am using iproute2 to setup fowarding, adding routes like "ip route add 192.168.1.3 via 192.168.1.2" I was wondering where in the kernel I can insert probabilistic packet loss only for forwarded packets? So that for instance I can drop 5% of all forwarded packets? I don''t need help with the actual code, just need help finding where to insert this code :) Thanks! George

...running 6 node5 running 7 node6 running 8 node7 running 9 node8 running 10 node9 running 11 node10 running 12 node11 running 13 node12 running 14 node13 running 15 node14 running 15 node14 running 16 node16 running node15 is up and running, can ssh i...

...] node6 [ label="6: [ 6.250000e-02, 0.000000e+00 ]" ] node7 [ label="7: [ 7.500000e-02, 0.000000e+00 ]" ] node8 [ label="8: [ inf, 0.000000e+00 ]" ] node9 [ label="9: [ inf, 0.000000e+00 ]" ] node10 [ label="10: [ inf, 0.000000e+00 ]" ] node11 [ label="11: [ inf, 0.000000e+00 ]" ] node12 [ label="12: [ 3.750000e-01, 0.000000e+00 ]" ] edge [ len=13 ] node0 -- node1 [ label="[ 0.000000e+00, 0.000000e+00 ]\n[ 0.000000e+00, inf ]\n" ] node0 -- node2 [ label="[ 0.000000e+00, 0.000000e+00 ]\n[ 0.00000...

...by 50 consecutive mails beeing broken. (I am showing the last 20 in the web interface) After some debugging i found a bunch of mails like this: Return-Path: <*************************> X-Original-To: test at wasteland.rfc822.org Delivered-To: inbox at wasteland.rfc822.org Received: from node11.tmdvps.com (unknown [184.154.211.109]) by pax.zz.de (Postfix) with SMTP id 3B73DD00B5 for <test at wasteland.rfc822.org>; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 17:09:25 +0200 (CEST) <U+FEFF>Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:09:24 +0000 (GMT) From: Apple Support <*************************> REPLY-TO: do_...

btw, the "default reply-to-all" extension for gmail works great! On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Mikael Lyngvig <mikael at lyngvig.org> wrote: > Hehe, I intentionally left out the group because I just wanted to cheer > you up and let you know that there's more than one "retard" on the list. > > > 2012/6/14 Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> >

...6: [ 6.250000e-02, 0.000000e+00 ]" ] > node7 [ label="7: [ 7.500000e-02, 0.000000e+00 ]" ] > node8 [ label="8: [ inf, 0.000000e+00 ]" ] > node9 [ label="9: [ inf, 0.000000e+00 ]" ] > node10 [ label="10: [ inf, 0.000000e+00 ]" ] > node11 [ label="11: [ inf, 0.000000e+00 ]" ] > node12 [ label="12: [ 3.750000e-01, 0.000000e+00 ]" ] > edge [ len=13 ] > node0 -- node1 [ label="[ 0.000000e+00, 0.000000e+00 ]\n[ > 0.000000e+00, inf ]\n" ] > node0 -- node2 [ label="[ 0.000000e+00,...

Hi Lang, I'm surprised about the fact that you omit R1/R2 reductions in some cases. Can you give a more detailed description of the bug (e.g. a PBQP dump)? Best regards, Sebastian Lang Hames wrote: > Hi Sachin, llvm-dev, > > I've just committed a new PBQP solver which, among other things, > should take care of this bug. > > Please let me know how it works out for you.

Dear All I am trying to replicate a numerical application (not computed on R) from an article. Using, ks.test() I computed the exact D value shown in the article but the p-values I obtain are quite different from the one shown in the article. The tests are performed on a sample of 37 values (please see "[0] DATA" below) for truncated Exponential, Pareto and truncated LogNormal

I recently wrote to the list. The distributed message had the following headers: > Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 19:22:59 +0100 (CET) > From: Roger Price via Nut-upsuser <nut-upsuser at alioth-lists.debian.net> > Reply-To: Roger Price <roger at rogerprice.org> > To: nut-upsuser Mailing List <nut-upsuser at lists.alioth.debian.org> > Subject: ... Note that the Reply-To

Hi Sachin, llvm-dev, I've just committed a new PBQP solver which, among other things, should take care of this bug. Please let me know how it works out for you. Cheers, Lang. On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Sachin, > > Yes. Bernhard Scholz and I have just discussed a fix for this. I hope to > commit it in the next few days. I