similar to: Size of array hosts, vhosts_count and modulo operation

Hi, Dovecot Director is used to keep a temporary user -> Dovecot backend server mapping. So, Director decides which backend handles each user and the user is always redirected to the same server. All user data is stored in shared storage (NFS). The Dovecot presentation featured during this webinar

An idea I just had: Director basically works by assigning the backend IP address by: ip = vhosts[ md5(username) mod vhosts_count ].ip The rest of director is about what happens when vhosts[] or vhosts_count changes. What about instead doing this on IP address level? ip = ip_pool[ md5(username) mod ip_pool_size ] When a backend dies, you'll reassign the backend's IPs to other

As http://wiki.dovecot.org/NFS describes, the main problem with NFS has always been caching problems. One NFS client changes two files, but another NFS client sees only one of the changes, which Dovecot then assumes is caused by corruption. The recommended solution has always been to redirect the same user to only a single server at the same time. User doesn't have to be permanently assigned

Hi, The measurements were created under the following conditions : ? operating system : Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 6.6 (Santiago) kernel in version 2.6.32-504.el6.x86_64 ? virtual server (VMware) with an Intel(R) Xeon(R) 4vCPU E5649 x 2,526 GHz (2 cores per virtual socket) and 4 GB RAM ? 7,200 RPM SATA 1TB (FC SAN IBM System Storage N3400) ? all file systems had been formated in

Alas, I've set fs.suid_dumpable to 2 but the core is not dumped. So far I've checked: - ulimit -c unlimited, done - /proc/sys/kernel/core_pattern is set to /var/tmp/core.%p - /var/tmp is chmod 1777 - daemon is not chrooted - sysctl -w fs.suid_dumpable=2 - dir /var/tmp is empty and filesystem has 2GB free This is the logfile: Sep 18 13:54:22 imap-front4 dovecot: director: doveadm: Host

Hi all, Sorry for bothering those not interested. I found that ARM backend will insert a modulo function (like __modsi3) instead of the modulo instruction. I wonder how we can inline the modulo function into the program. Is there any OPTION we can use in the opt or llc? Thanks, Ray -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On 30 Oct 2017, at 11.05, Ralf Becker <rb at egroupware.org> wrote: > > It happened now twice that replication created folders and mails in the > wrong mailbox :( > > Here's the architecture we use: > - 2 Dovecot (2.2.32) backends in two different datacenters replicating > via a VPN connection > - Dovecot directors in both datacenters talks to both backends with

On Jan 23, 2013, at 3:45 PM, ryan baird <ryanrbaird at gmail.com> wrote: > I was reading about the order of optimizations in the code generation stage here: http://llvm.org/docs/CodeGenerator.html#the-high-level-design-of-the-code-generator > > This is the part that's interesting to me: > > 3. SSA-based Machine Code Optimizations — This optional stage consists of a

I can't run a function which generates random numbrers using linear congruential generator. My multiplier is a=5+8^6, increment is b=1 and modulo is m=2^30. the code I have written works for modulo upto m=2^28. For m= 2^29 , it says, can not allocate memory for the vector or something like that. For m= 2^31 or more, its says the argument "for i in 1:m " is too large in

I was reading about the order of optimizations in the code generation stage here: http://llvm.org/docs/CodeGenerator.html#the-high-level-design-of-the-code-generator This is the part that's interesting to me: 3. SSA-based Machine Code Optimizations<http://llvm.org/docs/CodeGenerator.html#ssa-based-machine-code-optimizations>— This optional stage consists of a series of machine-code

On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 03:11:45PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 01:58:29PM +0000, Renato Golin wrote: > > I can see the error, and it's just a bad selection of choices. I was > > wrong in assuming that the "eabi" at the end would always force it: > > > > $ clang -target arm-elf-eabi -S mod.c -o - | grep mod > > .file

Hi Tim, Thanks for your reply. On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Ray, > > On 10 November 2014 10:13, Alex S <alexmountain13 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Sorry for bothering those not interested. I found that ARM backend will > > insert a modulo function > > (like __modsi3) instead of the modulo instruction.

I have a problem integrating the 'standard map' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_map ) with deSolve: By using the modulo-operator '%%' with 2*pi in the ODEs (standardmap1), the resulting values of P and Theta, should not be greater than 2pi. Because this was not the case, i was thinking that the function 'ode' has some

On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 01:58:29PM +0000, Renato Golin wrote: > I can see the error, and it's just a bad selection of choices. I was > wrong in assuming that the "eabi" at the end would always force it: > > $ clang -target arm-elf-eabi -S mod.c -o - | grep mod > .file "mod.c" > bl __modsi3 > bl __umodsi3 I was discussing this with Tim on IRC and he

On 11/09/2018 11:23 AM, Emil Bode wrote: > Hi all, > > > > Could we modify the "%%" (modulo)-operator to include some tolerance for rounding-errors when supplied with doubles? > > It's not much work (patch supplied on the bottom), and I don't think it would break anything, only if you were really interested in analysing rounding differences. > >

Hello, I was wondering if anybody could help me to find swing modulo scheduling implementation in LLVM. It looks like that SMS has been implemented for SPARC V9 back end but I could not find it anywhere!! Thanks -- Mahdi Hamzeh Graduate Research Associate School of Computing, Informatics, and Decision Systems Engineering (CIDSE) Arizona State University http://www.public.asu.edu/~mhamzeh1/

Hi Joerg, > At the moment, this will call __modsi3 and __umodsi3, even though those > functions are not part of AAPCS. Should this be considered a lowering > bug in the ARM target? LLVM actually supports both variants, depending on the target. The __aeabi_* functions are part of the ARM "runtime ABI" and largely independent of AAPCS. For whatever reason, Linux (& Darwin)

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 01:48:17AM -0800, edwintorok wrote: > Following the link to builder.ml from your blogpost I noticed the make_random_password () function, and I have some suggestions, well nitpicks really. See the 2 commits from this pull request. > > 1. Using Ocaml&#39;s buffered I/O means that one make_random_password() call reads 64k bytes from /dev/urandom which drops the

On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 07:56:26AM +0000, Tim Northover wrote: > Hi Joerg, > > > At the moment, this will call __modsi3 and __umodsi3, even though those > > functions are not part of AAPCS. Should this be considered a lowering > > bug in the ARM target? > > LLVM actually supports both variants, depending on the target. The > __aeabi_* functions are part of the

On 9 December 2013 11:51, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de> wrote: > Part of the concern is that the same code using / does call __aeabi_idiv > and __aeabi_uidiv. Hi Joerg, I can see the error, and it's just a bad selection of choices. I was wrong in assuming that the "eabi" at the end would always force it: $ clang -target arm-elf-eabi -S mod.c -o - |