| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Comments:
<0> jrwr: you mean if they don't hit index.html they don't get the redirect?
<1> one domain goes to one folder, the other goes to the other
<1> folder
<0> jrwr: be more specific
<1> but also i need the path to be p***ed on too
<1> like so
<2> hmm someone has to what the problem with xorg is in testing atm :p
<0> jrwr: use mod rewrite
<3> DerJamster: aarrggh. I made a mistake, I need to undo will that work: find . -name "*\.txt" -type f -exec rm {} \;
<4> Blis***, GeorgeS069 , it was the cable!!!! arghhh!!! thank you very much, guys!
<0> jrwr: RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://some.other.domain/$1 [R,L]
<1> ultimate***ains -> ua.otherdomain.com | woodysroom.com -> blah.blah.com
<5> anibain: yes, it looked like it.
<0> jrwr: then you need to add some RewriteCond's too
<6> stew: it's asking for my "System mail name", do i want to put my ISP ***igned WAN address or do i want to put my actual domain name that forwards to my WAN address, or should it be my LAN ip?
<0> yawg: the domain name
<7> cool...glad we could help :)
<7> liable : did you know those speed_limit_max and _min settings were per device....so theoretically you could really push the arrays to super fast speeds
<7> problem is the rest of the system would be crawling...starved for drive access
<8> GeorgeS069: i didnt look to far into it, but sounds like you are on the right track
<8> GeorgeS069: well, its only a rebuild thing os far as i understood it
<7> Seems it uses those settings to keep the array build/re-build from taking over 100% of disk access
<7> I'm still installing so I'll leave them alone:)
<8> yeah, its only during the array building part that making those values high would help
<5> liable: GeorgeS069: a bit of evangelization: http://WWW.BAARF.com/
<7> ROFL
<7> I'll never give up my raid5 arrays :)
<9> I just installed Etch, and xorg, when I try to startx from my user account I get an error: X: Unable to open wrapper config file /etc/X11/XWrapper.conf X: user not authorized to run the X server, aborting.
<9> anyone know how I can run X as a user (works fine as root)
<7> I do know enough to use hot spares in my raid setups atleast...and always make backups
<3> kados: it is not an out of the box installation , isn't it ?
<10> kados: your /usr/bin/X not setuid?
<0> kados: /msg dpkg xwrapper.config
<11> is there any good jabber console client?
<12> Blis***: i've read that .. it's pretty much crap
<12> callee: centericq
<11> abrotman: i meant "good"
<12> it is good
<12> IMO anyways
<11> centericq is a pain if you wanna chat with more than one person at the same time
<12> Blis***: and IIRC .. it's also factually wrong
<3> what are the good irc client (I already know xchat and ksirc)
<10> callee: bitlbee + irssi-text?
<5> abrotman: the great RAID debate :-)
<12> Blis***: no .. i mean .. it seems the guy doesn't actually know what he's talking about
<13> Blis***: heheh, baarf is a wonderfully hilarious and ... uh, opinionated, if not informative, site
<5> abrotman: it is actually a good group of people, not just one guy, all come to the same conclusion... and I think it is mostly OK.
<12> Blis***: i'm not saying RAID10 isn't better .. but his case against RAID5 is .. bad :)
<14> hi. Could anyone have any idea why alsa-sources from debian/testing won't compile on ubuntu/dapper?
<15> I'm with CovInHer on this one.
<15> You already have an IRC client, why install some other program?
<14> seems to fail with this error: include/linux/pci.h:424: error: syntax error before numeric constant
<11> CovInHer: no, thx, i am not smoking weed
<13> RQ: nope, not in here, we really can't help you with ubuntu in here
<3> Ferret: to use the most suitable for me
<16> hi, how do I know if xarchiver is a new version of xarchive ?
<14> Vasistha, i know, but i don't think that pci.h should differ between debian and ubuntu
<15> roxy_: That wasn't a response to you, sorry.
<14> g333k, just look at apt-cache policy for both
<14> err, apt-cache show
<15> roxy_: irssi-text is a good IRC client though.
<12> Blis***: he goes so far as to recommend RAID3 .. ewww
<16> RQ, thanks
<5> abrotman: not really, he just says it is not as bad as RAID5 :-).
<12> Blis***: yeah .. but he's wrong :)
<3> Ferret: is that text only ?
<3> Ferret: I mean no gui
<15> Yes.
<15> Last time I checked IRC was a text medium.
<12> Blis***: you'd prefer RAID3 over RAID5?
<12> Blis***: of course .. it also depends on your usage patterns
<17> what's the difference between kernel-image and linux-image packages?
<12> linux-image is for etch and up
<17> what does that mean?
<5> abrotman: RAID3 would be better than RAID5 in most cases...
<12> Blis***: unless you're mostly read
<5> abrotman: even so...
<12> Blis***: the read performance on RAID3 is pretty bad
<12> well .. no worse than a single disk :)
<5> abrotman: but yet, of course the issues with RAID5 are mostly hidden if one does mostly reads and rebuilds are extremely rare.
<10> Blis***: "most cases" == "write-intensive applicatons and thunderstorms"?
<12> Blis***: hopefully you're not rebuilding often :)
<5> abrotman: but if you rebuild RAID5 is so ****ed...
<0> why?
<5> CovInHer: well, I knew a guy who rather foolishly was backing up to RAID5 :-)
<12> Blis***: why? .. it's jsut slower .. not a super huge deal .. better than your read speed ****ing .. always :)
<10> Blis***: Not terribly unwise if it's just being staged there
<5> abrotman: it is _way_ slower and more fragile too.
<5> CovInHer: it is insane! Backing up is basically 100% writes, and RAID5 really does not like that.
<10> Blis***: Not it's strong suit, sure -- but who cares?
<5> CovInHer: I prayed for this wayward soul to leave the path and evil, and eventually he tries RAID10 and backup speed went up 10 times
<0> my raid5 array writes much faster than the backup machine can read from the internet
<5> stew: repent ye! The end is nigh!
<10> Blis***: that's conventional wisdom thought. raid3 being the dandiest thing compared to raid5 isn't
<5> stew: yes, but also consider the problem with lots of writes, not just speed: if you get a problem when writing...
<0> Blis***: complete that sentence
<5> CovInHer: but the RAID3 argument is just to show how heretical RAID5 is. The champion of good is RAID10, no RAID3.
<10> Blis***: raid3 would have been in better shape striping bytes "if you get a problem"
<5> stew: it is written in BAARF.com, but basically there are two problems: bad writes can get bad data to be undetectably written to the array, and loss of one disk removes any resilience.
<5> stew: there is also another problem that a clever friend of mine figured out with backing up to RAID5 or in general...
<5> stew: RAID5 generates a _lot_ more IO operations than the alternative, in particular writes (the parity set has to be updated as a whole), and disk drives are designed for more reads than writes, and anyhow for lower traffic levels.
<18> hello
<0> Blis***: what's wrong with doing more writes?
<12> Blis***: eh... i still disagree
<5> stew: well, it wears out the drive faster, but also offers more opportunity for errors.
<5> abrotman: I pray for your soul, that you may see the light one day :-)
<12> right ..because every drive has a finite life
<12> Blis***: the dark light?
<0> Blis***: i'm fine with wearing out my drive faster. they are replacable
<19> i am your father
<12> NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
<7> lol
<0> Blis***: my array emails me when it has bad writes, it happens once every couple of weeks
<5> stew: eeeek. Thats fairly often.
<7> yeah,really...ide drives are cheap...my 200gig seagates were only like $60 after the rebates
<0> lemme double check
<19> what kind of load though
<19> yeh i have one of those seagates
<20> hello! which is the best program for recording the output of a soundcard?
<19> wish i had gotten more
<0> Blis***: well the one controller had 3 of them this year. so not really every couple of weeks
<21> Blis***: (some) raid controllers have also scheduled checking of data across all the disks, so one failed write won't go unnoticed for too long.
<5> jelly-home: ahhh but the problem is that a bad write will cause the parity to be recomputed with the bad data, and the bad write will never be detected by the array...
<11> ok, thx guys, i move to the oftc channel
<5> abrotman: thats name calling! :-)
<5> vekpos: depends on what you want to do. Have a look at 'arecord'
<21> Blis***: that would mean a bug in the controller (not an error on disk), right? Sounds improbable.
<20> ok, I just want to record the output of the program "mixxx" and save it as wav or so
<12> eeep .. lag!
<5> vekpos: check out http://WWW.sabi.co.UK/Notes/linuxSoundALSA.html#tasks
<20> ok, great - thanks a lot
<5> jelly-home: ahhh but you see whatever the cause of the error, the consequence is that the data in the block are lost, because the parity calculation is done with the wrong value, and irretrievably.
<21> Blis***: I think not.
<21> Blis***: You don't trust the data from the plate to calculate the parity.
<12> if the controller writes bad data .. is it the RAID config fault .. or the controller?
<12> and i don't see how RAID5 is unique in that situation
<5> abrotman: the unique badness is that the parity gets recomputed, and it says ''all OK''.
<5> abrotman: with other mirroring organizations, the good and bad blocks are at least different.
<12> which would happen for aother RAID configs
<12> other
<22> hello
<23> hi all
<3> what irc client will put the time with each someone "says" something ?
<5> roxy_: virtually all, as an option to be enabled
<23> with sid moving over to gcc 4.1, i have gcc 4.0 left lying about .. how do i completely remove it ? i chose to remove gcc-4.0 and cpp-4.0 .. any more packages to be removed, to get rid of gcc 4.0 ?
Return to
#debian
or
Go to some related
logs:
xubuntu realink
#perl
yast klibido
set_ini( register_globals
+oracle +character string buffer is too small
Can't init tc log
#kde
#oe
#perl
#math
|
|