search for: x68_64

Hello guys, hope you're doing good: I'm running a couple of Samba servers like follows: Primary DC ========= Platform: Zentyal 4.2 development x68_64 Samba: 4.3.4-Zentyal DNS: BIND9_DLZ_module Role: Primary Domain Controller Setup: By default, following Zentyal's web interface. Secondary DC =========== Platform: CentOS 7 x86_64 Samba: 4.3.4 built from source DNS: SAMBA_INTERNAL Role: Backup Domain Controller: Setup: According to https://wi...

On 22/02/16 12:49, Jason Voorhees wrote: > Hello guys, hope you're doing good: > > I'm running a couple of Samba servers like follows: > > Primary DC > ========= > Platform: Zentyal 4.2 development x68_64 > Samba: 4.3.4-Zentyal > DNS: BIND9_DLZ_module > Role: Primary Domain Controller > Setup: By default, following Zentyal's web interface. > > > Secondary DC > =========== > Platform: CentOS 7 x86_64 > Samba: 4.3.4 built from source > DNS: SAMBA_INTERNAL > Role...

Hi, I have the same problem. The strange thing is, GW was working for me already (on an older install, but now I have x68_64) I receive the same error messages and already added the regestry entries. Any ideas?

...B). None of our smaller tinc networks do this. As to which nodes use a lot of memory, I could not find a distinguishing factor: tinc version, OS version, kernel version, being included in ConnectTo and tinc traffic seem all not to determine memory consumption. Architecture may be a factor, as only x68_64 ones exhibit high RAM usage, but I cannot change that. What could cause such high memory usage? Any tips how to avoid it? Does anyone have experience with larger tinc networks? ------- The Long Version ------- I have three tinc networks, two smaller application-specific ones (10-15 active hosts)...

...inst the flow preservation rules I did performance measurements on the C and C++ portions of the SPEC CPU2000 benchmark, the results are: *) on average 46% of the edges are instrumented with a counter (in comparison to 100% with the current edge profiling) *) the performance overhead (on linux-x68_64, other platforms to follow) was 14.76% with the current profiling and 8.20% with the optimal profiling (there are strange effects with the mcf and equake benchmarks where the current edge profiling is as fast as the un-instrumented code whereas the optimally instrumented code has a...

Hello, i have this strange problem with APC BackUPS RS 1500 ? older one model, white one under windows in powerchute is device OK, working everything ok selftest ok, just ordinary ups. under CentOS 7 minimal (CentOS-7-x86_64-Minimal-1708.iso) kernel version 3.10.0-693.el7.x68_64 driver version 2.7.2 i have this strange probem: nut driver didnt start automatically with error, after i enter in console twice as root: systemctl start nut-monitor.service nut-server.service -this returns error again systemctl start nut-monitor.service nut-server.service -second try ? servic...

Hello, i have this strange problem with APC BackUPS RS 1500 ? older one model, white one under windows in powerchute is device OK, working everything ok selftest ok, just ordinary ups. under CentOS 7 minimal (CentOS-7-x86_64-Minimal-1708.iso) kernel version 3.10.0-693.el7.x68_64 driver version 2.7.2 i have this strange probem: nut driver didnt start automatically with error, after i enter in console twice as root: systemctl start nut-monitor.service nut-server.service -this returns error again systemctl start nut-monitor.service nut-server.service -second try ? servic...

...rset="utf-8" Hello, i have this strange problem with APC BackUPS RS 1500 ? older one model, white one under windows in powerchute is device OK, working everything ok selftest ok, just ordinary ups. under CentOS 7 minimal (CentOS-7-x86_64-Minimal-1708.iso) kernel version 3.10.0-693.el7.x68_64 driver version 2.7.2 i have this strange probem: nut driver didnt start automatically with error, after i enter in console twice as root: systemctl start nut-monitor.service nut-server.service -this returns error again systemctl start nut-monitor.service nut-server.service -second try ? servic...

...rules > > I did performance measurements on the C and C++ portions of the SPEC CPU2000 > benchmark, the results are: > *) on average 46% of the edges are instrumented with a counter (in >   comparison to 100% with the current edge profiling) > *) the performance overhead (on linux-x68_64, other platforms to follow) was >   14.76% with the current profiling and 8.20% with the optimal profiling >   (there are strange effects with the mcf and equake benchmarks where the >   current edge profiling is as fast as the un-instrumented code whereas the >   optimally instrumented...