search for: samd

On 6/14/2015 6:55 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote: > Maybe I used dd at some point. > Would this keep the same UUID? DD just does a blind block by block copy between two devices or files. -- john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

On 06/14/2015 10:08 PM, jd1008 wrote: > > > On 06/14/2015 08:58 PM, John R Pierce wrote: >> On 6/14/2015 6:55 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote: >>> Maybe I used dd at some point. >>> Would this keep the same UUID? >> >> DD just does a blind block by block copy between two devices or files. >> >> >> > I thought that uuid had nothing to do

On Mon, 15 Jun 2015, jd1008 wrote: > Thanx for the update > but what about non-gpt and non lvm partitions? > What is used as inp > nut to create a universally unique id? > > (Actually, for an id to be universally unique, one would almost > nee knowledge of all existing id's. > So, I do not have much credence in this universal uniqueness. Sufficiently random gets you

On 06/15/2015 11:08 AM, jd1008 wrote: > Thanx for the update > but what about non-gpt and non lvm partitions? > What is used as inp > nut to create a universally unique id? Non-GPT partitions do not have a UUID. The _content_ (filesystem, LVM physical volume, non-encrypted swap space, etc.) of such a partition could have a UUID, but the partition itself does not. -- Bob Nichols

On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Always Learning wrote: > ON Centos 5, using GPARTED I created partitions for filing systems ext3 > and ext4. 4 primary and unlimited (except by space) extended partitions. > That suggests those partitions are not GPT but old fashioned M$DOS If it is old fashioned MSDOS, you can have four total primary and extended, not four primary plus extended. An extended

On 16 Jun 2015 12:12, "Always Learning" <centos at u64.u22.net> wrote: > > > On Tue, 2015-06-16 at 11:30 +0100, John Hodrien wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Always Learning wrote: > > > > > ON Centos 5, using GPARTED I created partitions for filing systems ext3 > > > and ext4. 4 primary and unlimited (except by space) extended partitions. >

On 06/16/2015 06:43 AM, James Hogarth wrote: > On 16 Jun 2015 12:12, "Always Learning" <centos at u64.u22.net> wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, 2015-06-16 at 11:30 +0100, John Hodrien wrote: >>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Always Learning wrote: >>> >>>> ON Centos 5, using GPARTED I created partitions for filing systems > ext3 >>>>

I seem to have partitions on two different disks with the same UUID: [tim at helen ~]$ sudo blkid /dev/sda2 /dev/sda2: LABEL="/boot1" UUID="5bbc8e95-6108-41f5-bc0e-5b5f8df5ce03" TYPE="ext3" [tim at helen ~]$ sudo blkid /dev/sdb2 /dev/sdb2: LABEL="/boot1" UUID="5bbc8e95-6108-41f5-bc0e-5b5f8df5ce03" TYPE="ext3" This is

On Mon, 2015-06-15 at 21:41 -0500, Robert Nichols wrote: > Non-GPT partitions do not have a UUID. The _content_ (filesystem, > LVM physical volume, non-encrypted swap space, etc.) of such a > partition could have a UUID, but the partition itself does not. ON Centos 5, using GPARTED I created partitions for filing systems ext3 and ext4. 4 primary and unlimited (except by space) extended

On 06/14/2015 08:58 PM, John R Pierce wrote: > On 6/14/2015 6:55 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote: >> Maybe I used dd at some point. >> Would this keep the same UUID? > > DD just does a blind block by block copy between two devices or files. > > > I thought that uuid had nothing to do with drive content, so dd would have (should have had) nothing to do with it. I thought it

On 06/15/2015 07:56 AM, Robert Nichols wrote: > On 06/14/2015 10:08 PM, jd1008 wrote: >> >> >> On 06/14/2015 08:58 PM, John R Pierce wrote: >>> On 6/14/2015 6:55 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote: >>>> Maybe I used dd at some point. >>>> Would this keep the same UUID? >>> >>> DD just does a blind block by block copy between two devices

On Tue, 2015-06-16 at 11:30 +0100, John Hodrien wrote: > On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Always Learning wrote: > > > ON Centos 5, using GPARTED I created partitions for filing systems ext3 > > and ext4. 4 primary and unlimited (except by space) extended partitions. > > That suggests those partitions are not GPT but old fashioned M$DOS > > If it is old fashioned MSDOS, you can

...4.5.0 and discovered that one of my user accounts is completely borked. What is very strange is that everything in Samba looks okay. Here is the first problem symptom. The data is from the DC. total 80 drwxr-xr-x. 7 root root 4096 Oct 9 01:15 . drwx------+ 77 SAMDOM\prg-11868bg SAMDOM\domain users 20480 Oct 9 00:55 prg-11868bg drwx------+ 39 3001108 SAMDOM\domain users 4096 Oct 9 00:30 sln-11868bg Note that the directory sln-11868bg is owned by 3001108 instead of SAMDOM\sln-11868bg. But everything seems like it should be correct. For...

Greetings, all! We are having problems with file dates getting set incorrectly when we update a file from Windows. We are using Samba 3.0.2a on a Solaris 10 (0508 distribution) server, accessing from Windows XP SP2. When we edit a file on the automount from a Windows box, the file creation date, file modified date, and file accessed date all get set to the current time (as shown in the Windows

On 2 May 2017 at 23:59, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > That's interesting. Usually your code wouldn't be gc'ed because your entire > code is reachable from _start. Baremetal doesn't need a _start. > Does your program depend on the feature that, if no -e option is given, the > linker sets the beginning of the .text section to the entry point address?

...gt; user accounts is completely borked. What is very strange is that > everything in Samba looks okay. Here is the first problem symptom. > The data is from the DC. > > total 80 > drwxr-xr-x. 7 root root 4096 Oct 9 > 01:15 . > drwx------+ 77 SAMDOM\prg-11868bg SAMDOM\domain users 20480 Oct 9 > 00:55 prg-11868bg > drwx------+ 39 3001108 SAMDOM\domain users 4096 Oct 9 > 00:30 sln-11868bg > > Note that the directory sln-11868bg is owned by 3001108 instead of > SAMDOM\sln-11868bg. But everything seems l...

Hi all, I've been doing a ton of embedded work (bare metal ARM Cortex M0+ and M4, hopefully RISCV in the future) in the last year and would love to start using and hacking on the llvm toolchain. I've tried setting up clang + lld but can't get lld to work because clang tries to launch gcc. I realize support is early but I'd love to have a dev setup so I can help fix things. Could

i need to send massive emails to various customers, here 2 solutions i have think: 1- customers = Customer.find(:all, :conditions => "newsletter = 1") customers.each do |c| @email = c.email Mailer.deliver_send_newsletter(@subject, @email, @notice_id) end 2- customers = Customer.find(:all, :conditions => "newsletter = 1") customers.each do |c| addresses <<