similar to: Odd ActiveRecord#valid? behavior

Dear List Apologies for such a simple question: I have a vector of 738 elements, coded with values between 1 and 16 (but not containing 7, 10, 11 or 13) and wish to recode value 14 to 1, 4 to 2, 1 to 3, 2 to 4 and all other values to 5. I've been trying to use the replace function (in base) and %in%, but without success. Many thanks Roy

Hi, for example one could do it this way: v <- summary(fit)$coefficients[,4] the coefficient attribute is a matrix, and with the "4" you refere to the pvalue (at least in lm - don't know if summary(glm) produces sligthely different output). to skip the intercept (1st row): v <- summary(glmfit)$coefficients[-1,4] hope this helps, Arne -- Arne Muller, Ph.D.

Hello I'm very new to R (which is excellent), so apologies if this has already been raised. In the spdep package, I'm trying to undertake an autoregressive mixed model using the lagsarlm function. This is working fine, but there does not appear to be a method of including an explanatory variable without it automatically being included as a lagged term. I'm after something along the

> On Feb 3, 2020, at 2:50 PM, Nadav Amit <namit at vmware.com> wrote: > >> On Feb 3, 2020, at 8:34 AM, David Hildenbrand <david at redhat.com> wrote: >> >> On 03.02.20 17:18, Alexander Duyck wrote: >>> On Mon, 2020-02-03 at 08:11 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:59:46AM -0800, Tyler Sanderson wrote:

> On Feb 3, 2020, at 2:50 PM, Nadav Amit <namit at vmware.com> wrote: > >> On Feb 3, 2020, at 8:34 AM, David Hildenbrand <david at redhat.com> wrote: >> >> On 03.02.20 17:18, Alexander Duyck wrote: >>> On Mon, 2020-02-03 at 08:11 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:59:46AM -0800, Tyler Sanderson wrote:

On 08.03.20 05:47, Tyler Sanderson wrote: > Tested-by: Tyler Sanderson <tysand at google.com> > > Test setup: VM with 16 CPU, 64GB RAM. Running Debian 10. We have a 42 > GB file full of random bytes that we continually cat to /dev/null. > This fills the page cache as the file is read. Meanwhile we trigger > the balloon to inflate, with a target size of 53 GB. This setup

On 08.03.20 05:47, Tyler Sanderson wrote: > Tested-by: Tyler Sanderson <tysand at google.com> > > Test setup: VM with 16 CPU, 64GB RAM. Running Debian 10. We have a 42 > GB file full of random bytes that we continually cat to /dev/null. > This fills the page cache as the file is read. Meanwhile we trigger > the balloon to inflate, with a target size of 53 GB. This setup

Dear R-help I have two separate experiments, one a repeated-measures design, the other a split-plot. In a standard ANOVA I have usually undertaken a multiple-comparison test on a significant factor with e.g TukeyHSD, but as I understand it such a test is inappropriate for repeated measures or split-plot designs. Is it therefore sensible to use Helmert contrasts for either of these designs?

There were apparently good reasons for moving away from OOM notifier callback: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/7/12/314 https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/8/2/322 In particular the OOM notifier is worse than the shrinker because: 1. It is last-resort, which means the system has already gone through heroics to prevent OOM. Those heroic reclaim efforts are expensive and impact application performance.

There were apparently good reasons for moving away from OOM notifier callback: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/7/12/314 https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/8/2/322 In particular the OOM notifier is worse than the shrinker because: 1. It is last-resort, which means the system has already gone through heroics to prevent OOM. Those heroic reclaim efforts are expensive and impact application performance.

On 03.02.20 17:18, Alexander Duyck wrote: > On Mon, 2020-02-03 at 08:11 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:59:46AM -0800, Tyler Sanderson wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 7:31 AM Wang, Wei W <wei.w.wang at intel.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 11:03 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>

On 03.02.20 17:18, Alexander Duyck wrote: > On Mon, 2020-02-03 at 08:11 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:59:46AM -0800, Tyler Sanderson wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 7:31 AM Wang, Wei W <wei.w.wang at intel.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 11:03 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>

On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 09:19:58AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 05.02.20 08:35, Nadav Amit wrote: > >> On Feb 3, 2020, at 2:50 PM, Nadav Amit <namit at vmware.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Feb 3, 2020, at 8:34 AM, David Hildenbrand <david at redhat.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 03.02.20 17:18, Alexander Duyck wrote: >

I've tried to download rw1090.exe 3 times and rw1081.exe once onto a Windows XP from the UK mirrors (I've tried both of them). When the download is complete and I double-click on the icon I get an error message telling me the set-up files are corrupted and to obtain a new copy of the program. I have spent quite a lot of time checking the message archives but I can't find a solution. If

Hi all, I am currently doing a consistency analysis using an lmer model and trying to use parametric bootstrapping for the confidence intervals. My model is like this: model<-lmer(y~A+B+(1|C/D)+(1|E),binomial) where E is the individual level for consistency analysis, A-D are other fixed and random effects that I have to control for. Following Nakagawa and Scheilzeth I can work out the

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 12:29 AM David Hildenbrand <david at redhat.com> wrote: > On 03.02.20 21:32, Tyler Sanderson wrote: > > There were apparently good reasons for moving away from OOM notifier > > callback: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/7/12/314 > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/8/2/322 > > > > In particular the OOM notifier is worse than the shrinker

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 12:29 AM David Hildenbrand <david at redhat.com> wrote: > On 03.02.20 21:32, Tyler Sanderson wrote: > > There were apparently good reasons for moving away from OOM notifier > > callback: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/7/12/314 > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/8/2/322 > > > > In particular the OOM notifier is worse than the shrinker

On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 10:06:03AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 04.10.19 01:15, Tyler Sanderson wrote: > > I was mistaken, the problem with overcommit accounting is not fixed by > > the change to shrinker interface. > > This means that large allocations are stopped even if they could succeed > > by deflating the balloon. > > Please note that some people

On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 10:06:03AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 04.10.19 01:15, Tyler Sanderson wrote: > > I was mistaken, the problem with overcommit accounting is not fixed by > > the change to shrinker interface. > > This means that large allocations are stopped even if they could succeed > > by deflating the balloon. > > Please note that some people

On 09/14/2019 02:36 AM, Tyler Sanderson wrote: > Hello, I'm curious about the intent of VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_FREE_PAGE_HINT > (commit > <https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/86a559787e6f5cf662c081363f64a20cad654195#diff-fd202acf694d9eba19c8c64da3e480c9>). > > > My understanding is that this mechanism works similarly to the > existing inflate/deflate queues. Pages